# 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:** 9
**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, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/161 "2004-06-18T01:02:05Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > First off, thanks for calling me sane and rational. However, like I’ve said, people have, since the beginning of time, gone around having sex with each other, willy-nilly, without any sort of directed movement, and this is continuing today. So, I’m just wondering why you think some sort of educational campaign is neccesary now, to tell people they can either reproduce with someone in their “branch” or outside of it? Don’t people already know that? Surely you’re not unaware of how kids are educated today? There is absolutely not respect, at all, given to the notion of reproducing within a persons branch. In fact, the disrespect is so extreme, that the mainstream media and educational systems are still trying to convince everybody there there aren’t really anything other than “superficial” genetic differences between different branches of the human race? Who are these people to decide what is to be perceived as superficial, for every other person? That is the problem - not just a little problem, but a big, major problem - HUGE. ---
**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, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/162 "2004-06-18T01:02:26Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > Is it possible that some multi-racialists are superior in some ways as compared to some other branches? Multi-racialism is a branch? I thought it was a hate speech? Do you mean Halfers, like me? Virtually every “branch” results from Halfers at some point. Mexicans are a more modern example. ’ Do I think I’m genetically superior to anyone? No. Maybe there is some disease I’m immune to that most white people would suffer from. I don’t tan as easily. And I can pick lettuce real fast. (last one was a joke) ---
**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, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/163 "2004-06-18T01:05:00Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > Surely you’re not unaware of how kids are educated today? There is absolutely not respect, at all, given to the notion of reproducing within a persons branch. So what? There’s none given to reproducing outside of your “branch” either, other than “it’s OK.” I’d wager that there is not one person in the US who seriously states, “you should breed with other ra- er, branches” ---
**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, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/164 "2004-06-18T01:05:36Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > It’s hard to understand what education is needed. Is some poor chump from Uganda going to be SHOCKED!! when he marries a German woman and their kids have coffee-colored skin instead of black skin like their father? Is some uninformed Swede going to have a heart attack when he marries a Japanese woman and his kids don’t have blond hair and blue eyes? We simply need to openly discuss human genetic branching. Today it’s a one sided environment. That’s it. ---
**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, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/165 "2004-06-18T01:07:52Z")
> [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by 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. > > Quote: > Originally Posted by 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? This is called spam ---
**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, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/166 "2004-06-18T01:08:11Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > Surely you’re not unaware of how kids are educated today? There is absolutely not respect, at all, given to the notion of reproducing within a persons branch. In fact, the disrespect is so extreme, that the mainstream media and educational systems are still trying to convince everybody there there aren’t really anything other than “superficial” genetic differences between different branches of the human race? And **what exactly is wrong with that?** The scientific fact is that there **aren’t** anything other than superficial genetic differences between races. I take it as a given – contradict me on this point if you wish, but please don’t obfuscate it – that **physical** differences are in fact **superficial** differences. If you could prove that race A has a different average IQ than race B, or a predisposition to different Myers-Briggs personality types, or any kind of significant psychological or behavioral difference, then that would not be “superficial.” Bot nobody has yet proven the existence of any such differences. And why, exactly, should the educational process give any “respect” to “the notion or reproducing within a person’s branch”? Especially as most people will do that anyway, and you know it. ---
**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, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/167 "2004-06-18T01:09:44Z")
And what about the Jewish media? Get real or get lost! ---
**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, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/168 "2004-06-18T01:12:29Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > We simply need to openly discuss human genetic branching. Today it’s a one sided environment. By “discuss” you mean “encourage.” People fuck people of their own race every bloody day. It is only recently that people were able to openly do anything OTHER than that, and suddenly the world is going to fall to pieces because not everyone is racially pure? Come on. In California, almost everyone has a little of something in them. What horrible fate awaits us? No, I’m really interested. What damnation shall strike at California because within 50 years, everyone will be a little “ethnic?” ---
**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, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/169 "2004-06-18T01:13:21Z")
> [@Really Not All That Bright](#): > > 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? Theory? You suggest that Genetic Branching is a theory? You are not rational. Genetic Branching is how all genetic life exists. It’s been stated before but this is how a branch is genetically defined: 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. I doubt you are open minded enough to comprehend that. You’ll likely just go on thinking that “we’re all one” and see your role as “putting down the ignorance of me.” When, in fact, you hold the ignorance torch loud and bright. What I have to realize is that so many people hold this ignorance torch, that I absolutely must just accept that for now and focus on the people who are open minded. ---
**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, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/170 "2004-06-18T01:14:53Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > 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. Discrimination: This is a fascinating word because it can mean something very positive or very negative. Usually such words are called opposites but the word discrimination is kind of an opposite of itself. The positive meaning is: 1. The ability to notice and value quality; the ability to appreciate good quality or taste. The negative meaning is: 2. Treating people differently through prejudice; unfair treatment of one person or group, usually because of prejudice about race, ethnic group, age group, religion, or gender. How does this apply to human branching? Obviously we should all discriminate when selecting partners to create children with (definition #1). Obviously we should not discriminate against people because they are of a different branch (definition #2). If a person chooses to mate within or very near their branch, they will discriminate within the branch to find the best partner. If they choose to mate with a distant branch, they will discriminate to find the best partner in that distant branch. Some people will not give genetics one thought and rather, they’ll simply discriminate among whomever happens to be in their proximity zone. If the demographics contain many distant branches living together in the same proximity zone, this type of discrimination will often lead to loving “multi-racial” (multi-branched) relationships. If the demographics contain only closely related branches, this type of discrimination will lead to loving relationships within these close branches. Technically, if an Irish mates with a Swede, both relatively “pure” verities with heritage going back many thousands of years, this is a multi-branched relationship. But it’s all relative to genetic distance. It’s however we wish to think about it, but it’s also precisely defined. Every time a human mates, they mate with somebody that has an exact, calculable aggregate genetic distance from themselves. ---
**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, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/171 "2004-06-18T01:15:03Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > Theory? You suggest that Genetic Branching is a theory? You are not rational. Genetic Branching is how all genetic life exists. It’s been stated before but this is how a branch is genetically defined: > > GENETIC DISTANCE: The calculation of a genetic distance blah blah Calm down there, son. No one is saying that races- er, branches, don’t exist. ---
**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, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/172 "2004-06-18T01:16:55Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > Technically, if an Irish mates with a Swede, both relatively “pure” verities with heritage going back many thousands of years, this is a multi-branched relationship. But it’s all relative to genetic distance. It’s however we wish to think about it, but it’s also precisely defined. Every time a human mates, they mate with somebody that has an exact, calculable aggregate genetic distance from themselves. … and? ---
**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, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/173 "2004-06-18T01:17:12Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > Theory? You suggest that Genetic Branching is a theory? You are not rational. Genetic Branching is how all genetic life exists. It’s been stated before but this is how a branch is genetically defined: > > 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. That is a broad statement in evolutionary biology, **hellothere.** But we are supposedly discussing something much more specific: **Human** genetic branching. Which, I keep telling you, pretty much stopped before the dawn of civilization, and ever since then different branches have been converging, not diverging. And you still haven’t come clost to answering the most important question, which several posters have repeated and you keep ignoring: **What are the existing branches of humanity today?** ---
**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, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/174 "2004-06-18T01:17:39Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > 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. You are no longer having a rational discussion… sorry… later the website we are discussing is [www.humanbranching.com](http://www.humanbranching.com) ---
**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, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/175 "2004-06-18T01:20:58Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > You are no longer having a rational discussion… sorry… later > > the website we are discussing is > > [www.humanbranching.com](http://www.humanbranching.com) lmao Why are you so afraid of the question, “what is a branch”? Whenever someone asks that, you say, “you are insane” or “this is irrational”. Is it a race? A genetic %age? Do you have a chart maybe? ---
**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, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/176 "2004-06-18T01:23:33Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > the website we are discussing is > > [www.humanbranching.com](http://www.humanbranching.com) I looked at your website, **hellothere.** I can find nothing that answers the question of what, exactly, the existing “branches” are. ---
**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, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/177 "2004-06-18T01:26:08Z")
> [@Hello's page](#): > > Between human populations, there is always much less than 0.1% difference. What these differences are and how much they vary can be used to construct a tree showing the relationships between human populations. The following tree is the result of such research, reported by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. The numbers across the top show the percentage difference in DNA, which is thus no more than 0.03% for all human beings. So, all branches are within that 0.03%? Is 0.0005% difference considered a different branch, or the same one? THis graph sums up the “branches” [http://www.humanbranching.com/human-branching.htm](http://www.humanbranching.com/human-branching.htm) See, that was simple, **hello**. Now, what was your point about the branches? ---
**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, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/178 "2004-06-18T01:27:12Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > THis graph sums up the “branches” Er, THIS graph [http://www.humanbranching.com/images/humantree3.gif](http://www.humanbranching.com/images/humantree3.gif) ---
**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, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/179 "2004-06-18T01:28:33Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > 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’. > > ?? Item #2 and #1 combined address your item I am addressing what choices a person has, not whether they specifically think about those choices while making them. You are addressing whether they thought about it prior to making the decision and your suggestion is that they “Not think about” unique human branches while making their reproductive choices. I wasn’t discussing whether people think about that or not in that section… it is in another location - that location is the next statement after item #2. So that is your item #3, already present in my website. ---
**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, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/180 "2004-06-18T01:30:32Z")
Yes, I saw that graph, but somehow I don’t think that’s what **hellothere** is talking about when he says “branches.” I mean, on the graph there’s “Europeans,” and on one side of them “Iranians,” and on the other side “Sardinians.” Is that the level of discrimination **hellothere** is talking about? Sardinians should be taught it’s all right to mate with other Sardinians? I don’t think so. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395.md?page=10)