Wait is it Wrinkle In Time, Wind In The Door, or Swiftly Tilting Planet that you’re citing?
I meant L’Engle Williams
:eek:
Oh my God. Does anybody seriously believe this poster is credible?
The entire fucking *point *of this sidetrack is that you claimed that there were human groups who were both geographically separate and morphologically distinct.
When we asked what those races might be, you told us that sub-Saharan African was one of those geographically separate and morphologically distinct races
When asked to provide evidence that the geographically distinct grouping “sub-Saharan African” was a morphologically distinct race, you introduced a paper by Gill, and claimed that Gill said that a geographically distinct known as “sub-Saharan African” was morphologically distinct.
Gill never said any such fucking thing. It has taken us three fucking pages, but you have finally admitted that you grossly misrepresented Gill, and that Gill never refers to any geographically distinct groups whatsoever, much less one called “sub-Saharan African”.
And you have the gall to ask “So what?”
You misrepresented Gill. You claimed that he had published evidence of a morphologically distinct race of people who inhabited a geographically separate area in sub-Saharan Africa.
Gill never published anything of the fucking kind.
That is “so what”.
Nothing Gill wrote in any way suggests that there is a morphologically distinct population in sub-Saharan Africa. Buy that is exactly what you claim that he did say.
Fuck me dead!
How the fuck can anyone hold as serious debate with someone who utterly misrepresents the literature, refuses to admit that he misrepresented it without being badgered by 4 pages. And when he finally does concede says “So what”.
I’ve said it before, and I will say it again: I don’t know whether Chen is misrepresenting these references because he is utterly unable to understand them, or if he is doing it deliberately. But the fact is that he is blatantly misrepresenting them, and refusing to admit that he is doing so without being badgered for 3 pages.
Well, good on you buddy.
All you do by repeatedly misquoting Gill and Irish is to destroy what tiny shred of credibility you may have. There are accusations I am forbidden to make in this forum, but I am sure you know very well what people are thinking of you when you repeatedly and knowingly misrepresent the references.
As such there is little that I need to do to utterly discredit you. You have already done that to yourself. All I need to do is keep highlighting the way that you knowingly and repeatedly misrepresent the references.
So please, keep doing so. While you do there is no chance at all that anybody is going to accept the ignorance that you spout, and that is good.
Now why in the name of Holy Fuck wuld I address yet another paper that you have balatneltly misrepresented when you utterly fail to admit how egregiously you have misrepresented the first two?
We are all too well aware fo your history Chen. You introduce some supposed reference, which is then proven by multiple posters not to say anything like what you claim. And rather than admitting that you introduce another reference, which is just as egregiously misrepresented. You never at any stage actually produce any valid evidence. The debates always run, as this one has, as follows:
Chen: There is such a thing as a biological race.
Us: Fine, name them
Chen: Black, White and Yellow
US: How do you distinguish Yellow
Chen: Smith says that Yellow can be distinguished.
Us: No , he doesn’t, he says that there are some Eskimos that can be distinguished
Chen: Jones says that Eskimos are Yellow.
Us: Yes, but Jones never even defines Yellow, and even if he did, it doesn’t support your claim that Smith distinguished Eskimos.
Chen: Johnson says that Eskimos are distinguishable.
Us: No, Johnson says that Eskimos can be grouped genetically with either Siberians or with Native Americans depending on what markers are used. He never says that Eskimos are yellow, he never says that Mongolians are Yellow, and he certainly never says that all Yellow people are distinguishable.
Chen: Brown says that all yellow people live in East Asia
Us: No, he doesn’t. Brown says that East Asians is one of the racial categories used by the London Police, and that police should use that term in preference to calling them yellow, as they used to under the old system.
Chen: Yes, but Rodriguez says Yellow should be used in preference to East Asian by dermatologists.
Us: No, he doesn’t. But even if he did: So fucking what? Where is this going? You have now introduced Smith, Jones, Johnson, Brown and now Rodriguez. None of them says what you claim that they say, and none of them is supporting your claim that Yellow people are physically distinct.
And this is the way that Chen always posts in these threads. If you don’t believe me, do a search. He spams every thread with endless, irrelevant references, he msirepsents them all, never admits that he misrpresnts them and tries to draw the most tenuous and rmabling connections between them.
Well no more. When you make a claim that a reference says something, it better fucking say it. If you have blatantly misrepresented it, as you have with Gill, your entire argument is dead. That’s it. Try again. You can’t build a castle on a pile of shit, and you can;t build any sort of argument on a pile of misrepresentations that isn’t laughable.
I am not chasing you down that rabbit hole any more. Your argument is based on a total failure to understand both Gill and Irish, and as such it is a load of shit.
That’s it.
Doesn’t matter what Brown or Smith or Rodriguez have to say. Your argument has fallen at the very first hurdle.
Go back to the beginning and try again.
In that case you’d refute many non-human sub species or races. In fact, zones of intergradation have traditionally been taken as evidence that core groups are indeedsubspecies rather than different species.
In humans there are no core groups. Every group you assign is arbitrary and every group is a core group.
You can logically claim that NW Europeans, Sub-Saharan Africans and East Asians are core groups as you have done, and that Nilotics, sub-Continentals and Levantines are zones of intergradation between them, as I presume you believe.
But you can equally logically claim that Nilotics, sub-Continentals and Levantines are core groups, and that NW Europeans, Sub-Saharan Africans and East Asians are zones of intergradation between them.
That’s the fucking point.
There aren’t any of these mythical “core groups” that everyone else intergrades between. Everybody is on an intergrade between two other groups. The English show an intermediate form between Russians and Libyans just as much as Libyans show an intermediate form between Spanish and Ethiopians. And the Russians show an intermediate form between Chinese and English just as much as the Chinese show an intermediate form between the Mongols and the Hmong.
There are no fucking core groups out there. Every human group is a core group and every human group is a transitional group.
Perhaps you can quote the actual text in your cite that makes this case, because I’m really not seeing any mention in there of how refuting that there are any “core groups” for humans has anything to do with mouse or fruit fly populations? There isn’t any “intergradation”, it’s fucking clinal. A smooth cline.
It’s quite simple - biology as a science does not recognise human races as subspecies. There were human subspecies, sure - Homo sapiens idaltu, and possibly Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Denisovans. But every human alive is Homo sapiens sapiens. That’s kind of already settled.
Either way, you seem to accept that there are “groups” that have lived in a single place for a very long time and have thus accumulated different sets of genetic variants over time’ (sub species). It is of course expected that individuals will have variable proportions of admixture. After all, races are not species, and people from different races have interbed in the past and are continuing to interbreed in the present.
Genetic testing has in fact vindicated the major findings of traditional physical anthropology. Physical anthropologists have long believed in continental races, although they may have differed as to the number of these races. Whenever individuals from around the world are clustered based on a large number of loci, invariably the major races emerge as clusters of genetic similarity. Whenever the self-reported race of individuals is compared with their “genotypic” cluster, invariably the two agree.
In regions of the world such as Central Asia, East Africa, or Latin America where traditional physical anthropology has believed that intermixture of races has created mixed-race populations, genetics has invariably shown the hybridity of these populations. Groups such as African Americans who were known to have acquired a large degree of Caucasoid admixture due to the social definition of a “black” in the United States, have been shown to be a group with around 20-25% European admixture.
Risch is simply pointing out that population geneticists have found the main genetic differentiation is found on a continental basis. Or as put here:
http://bioethics.stanford.edu/events/documents/pdfs/burchard.pdf
Bullshit. I have rejected this utterly and specifically and repeatedly in this thread and evey other thread.
Not only do you misrepresent your references. You are now blatantly misrepresenting me.
Please stop.
Actually, don’t.
All you do by repeatedly misquoting me and Gill and Irish is to destroy what tiny shred of credibility you may have. There are accusations I am forbidden to make in this forum, but I am sure you know very well what people are thinking of you when you repeatedly and knowingly misrepresent the references.
As such there is little that I need to do to utterly discredit you. You have already done that to yourself. All I need to do is keep highlighting the way that you knowingly and repeatedly misrepresent the references.
So please, keep doing so. While you do there is no chance at all that anybody is going to accept the ignorance that you spout, and that is good.
Individuals do not have variable proportions of admixture, because there is nothing for them to have an admixture of.
We know they do not because races do not exist. Peole can not have an admixture of something that doesn’t exist. And we know they do not exist because we asked you to provide evidence that they exist, and the only evidence you presented is a gross misrepresentation of Irish and Gill
Unless of course you are seriously arguing that we know that races exist because people are an admixture of races, and we know they are an admixture of races because races exist.
No, they do not.
And we know they are not because races do not exist. And we know they do not exist because we asked you to provide evidence that they exist, and the only evidence you presented is a gross misrepresentation of Irish and Gill
Bullshit.
Show us a Physical anthropologist who believed in a continental races prior to 1970.
Just one.
What, they were unsure how many continents there were? :rolleyes:
And so forth for the rest of this crap.
Al you are doing is attempting an argument from assertion. You assert that races exist, and then you attempt to demonstrate that by asserting that people are admixtures of races. You aren’t showing any evidence at all that races do exist, or that anybody is an admixture of them. All the evidence that you have provided has been a gross misrepresentations of the literature, to the point that you actually directly contradict the authors.
That sort of shit doesn’t fly in a high school debating comp. It sure doesn’t fly here.
All you do by repeatedly misquoting Gill and Irish is to destroy what tiny shred of credibility you may have. There are accusations I am forbidden to make in this forum, but I am sure you know very well what people are thinking of you when you repeatedly and knowingly misrepresent the references.
As such there is little that I need to do to utterly discredit you. You have already done that to yourself. All I need to do is keep highlighting the way that you knowingly and repeatedly misrepresent the references.
So please, keep doing so. While you do there is no chance at all that anybody is going to accept the ignorance that you spout, and that is good.
No how about you try to answer the rest of the questions put to you? Start with “What are the morphological features that you can use to distinguish sub-Saharan Africans?”
No current human population has been living in a single place for a long enough time to be genetically variant enough to be considered a subspecies. None.
And that’s why human races aren’t classed as subspecies by biologists.[
](Race (human categorization) - Wikipedia). That’s what the AAPA believes, that’s what the Liebermann surveys say.
Since blake has not responded to my questions, I will try to answer them:
Nothing. Or at least nothing I can think of.
Same response.
So it would appear that under the Blake Standard, “heavy smokers” and “overweight people” are not scientifically valid categories. Keep that in mind the next time you read about a study which indicates that heavy smokers are more likely to develop some particular kind of health problem. Such a study is per se just as invalid as one involving race.
Hey, it’s brazil84, guys. So, brazil, where are those “precise, objective definitions for racial categories” you were talking about?
Which question shave I not responded to? Serious question, because I think you might have missed a post or two.
AFAIK I have responded to all your questions. If not, I must have missed them. If you repost them I will respond.
I have to ask, where has anyone ever claimed that “heavy smoker”* is *a scientific category? Serious question, has anyone ever claimed that “heavy smoker” is genetic or that it corresponds to chemical composition or something?
“Heavy smoker” is, AFAIK, an utterly arbitrary social category. If you can provide an example of where someone claimed otherwise, I would love to see it.
And if you can’t, then I don’t see what point you are trying to make.
Where has anyone, in this thread or elsewhere, ever said that a study involving race is invalid?
There seem to be more strawmen per page in this thread than anywhere else on the internet, and that is saying something.
And I echo Mr. Dibble: where are those “precise, objective definitions for racial categories” you were talking about? You did say you could show them, right?
Fine. You have found a forum in which to make that particular point.
Now drop it out of this discussion. Utterly. You can refute claims to your heart’s content; you can point out how a statement is contradicted by other statements; you can point out how a claim is not supported by a citation. However, stop going beyond that to cast aspersions of the honesty of the character of a poster.
THAT GOES FOR EVERYONE. This also means no more mentioning how the rules prevent one from saying what one would like to say.
[ /Moderating ]
For starters, here:
-
What can you say which is (1) true about >95% of overweight people; (2) not true about >5% of other people; and (3) is beyond the simple fact that they have high BMI?
-
What can you say which is (1) true about >95% of heavy smokers; (2) not true about >5% of other people; and (3) is beyond the simple fact that they smoke beyond a certain level?
brazil84: Would you say that “The South” is a scientifically valid category? . . .What about “heavy smokers”?
Blake: Definitely not, unless you define the term very precisely.
I just defined the term very precisely. So, by your own claims, “heavy smokers” is a scientifically valid category.
Or do you want to change your position?
I have no idea.
You yourself just asserted that “heavy smoker” is a valid scientific category if the term is defined very precisely. Which I have just done.
Do you want to retract your claim?
I have no idea. I am not claiming that anyone has. I’m simply saying that by your reasoning, such a study would be just as per se invalid as one where “heavy smokers” was a category.
However, since you have raised the issue, let me put the question to you:
What difference does it make if race is not a scientifically valid category? If a study comes out which shows that “blacks” have smaller brain size than “whites,” does that (alleged) invalidity of racial categories undermine the validity of the study in any way?
What I said was this:
Please try to answer my question. A simple yes or no will do.
It’s more difficult for them to find dates.
They stink more.
Really? I cannot find where you have defined “heavy smoker” in any way, much less “very precisely.”
Could you repeat that definition and link to the post where you first provided it?
If “heavy smoker” is a “scientific term” does that also mean that “Trekkie” and “Bachelor fan” are also “scientific terms” as well?
Does that mean saying that I can’t stand people who are fans of Avatar is the equivalent of saying I can’t stand Blacks?
What is your definition of sub-species? I’ve been using O’Brien & Mayr:
The other day evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne used the following definitionwhich suggested the terms were interchangeable:
I’d be curious to know why you think there wouldn’t be human races based on these definitions.
a) )There are some human populations
b) Who’s members share – or ancestors shared – a unique geographical range or habitat
c) A unique natural history relative to other populations
d) And patterns of heritable phenotypic differences.
e) Which allows these individuals to be accurately assigned to their population (eg. 75% rule). (or by genetic analysis - see the 5 major clusters characterized in McEvoy, et al. (2010)
f) Given the intervals used in the case of other non-human populations.
Care to elaborate?
Yes, it is very difficult. But it can be done if enough force is applied. I came to realize that forcing oneself or being forced to repress it does enormous damage to a person inside, over time. Said person, after re-establishing their life the right way, may need tons of healing to recover their inner wholeness. I found this out personally.
Kids and everyone need to be allowed to find their own level with respect to gender, instead of forcing them into predetermined gender lives that they didn’t ask for and that are harmful to them.