 |
| |
|
|
ranskaldan
|
 |
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
I'm not going to support or oppose either side here, but let me just ask this:
There is a higher instance of dark skin among Africans and people of African descent, than among Europeans and people of European descent.
Similarly, there is a higher instance of wiry/woolly hair, thicker lips, etc among people of African than people of European descent.
Such genetic variation was created by long-term isolation of Europeans and Africans. This has caused two gene pools to be different in character, as evolution and chance always do to isolated populations.
Hence, why wouldn't such variations extend to anything beyond physical traits? Variations in terms of hormonal levels, for instance, could arise as well. In fact, they have to arise, or else the Theory of Evolution is bunk.
So far, I've seen 3 poor arguments against this point, and no good ones:
1. Europeans and Africans differ, genetically, in terms of bone structure and skin color ONLY. Saying anything else is evil.
(This is also used by religious fundamentalists to argue for the existence of God: saying that he doesn't exist is evil, whether objective evidence points that way or not.)
2. There are dark Europeans and light Africans.
(We are talking about the average values of two groups here. Just because some Europeans are darker than some Africans doesn't mean the general trend does not exist.)
3. There is no such thing as race.
(Well, I'm Jamaican then.  )
Last edited by ranskaldan on 09-11-2002 at 12:11
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ranskaldan
Hence, why wouldn't such variations extend to anything beyond physical traits? Variations in terms of hormonal levels, for instance, could arise as well. In fact, they have to arise, or else the Theory of Evolution is bunk. |
This shows your non-understanding of the Theory of Evolution. The ToE merely says that animals will adapt to their environment. In this case, dark-skinned, curly haired humans did not fair as well in northern climes. Their children who were lighter skinned were able to make more Vitimin D with their skin and retain more heat in the long Northern winters than their dark children. Eventually, light-skinned decendents out-competed dark-skinned inhabitants. What other traits would be selected against moving to the north?
Another major problem that the biological racists have, though they never acknowledge it is, their argument is limited by time. The first civilizations weren't white. In fact, Indo-Europeans were barbarian nomads who invaded and conquered the civlizations of browner peoples. If we are inherently smarter, why didn't we create our own civilizations until nearly 4,000 years after others?
For a thousand years after the fall of Rome, it was Arabs, Turks, Indians, Chinese, and Africans who were the standard bearers of civiliation while most our ancestors were hide-robed barbarians who were afraid of bathes and couldn't write. For most of civilized history, the Chinese were the leaders of civilization, and they probably will be again in a hundred years or so.
In the 19th Century, violent crime was far more likely to be committed in the US by white men against everyone. Black people didn't account for a majority of violent crimes until fairly recently in American history, probably the 1950s and later when the majority of Black people began living in cities.
So, can we make a deterimination that Black people are biologically more likely to committ a violent crime based on 50 years out of 8,000? Seems kind, well, f*cking stupid if you ask me.
Case closed!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
|
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
This shows your non-understanding of the Theory of Evolution. The ToE merely says that animals will adapt to their environment. In this case, dark-skinned, curly haired humans did not fair as well in northern climes. Their children who were lighter skinned were able to make more Vitimin D with their skin and retain more heat in the long Northern winters than their dark children. Eventually, light-skinned decendents out-competed dark-skinned inhabitants. What other traits would be selected against moving to the north? |
Any number of genetically-determined hormonal levels could have been affected. There is a huge number of substances coursing through the bloodstream that assist in homeostasis. A different climate would certainly have an effect.
quote:
Another major problem that the biological racists have, though they never acknowledge it is, their argument is limited by time. The first civilizations weren't white. In fact, Indo-Europeans were barbarian nomads who invaded and conquered the civlizations of browner peoples. If we are inherently smarter, why didn't we create our own civilizations until nearly 4,000 years after others?
For a thousand years after the fall of Rome, it was Arabs, Turks, Indians, Chinese, and Africans who were the standard bearers of civiliation while most our ancestors were hide-robed barbarians who were afraid of bathes and couldn't write. For most of civilized history, the Chinese were the leaders of civilization, and they probably will be again in a hundred years or so. |
That is a much better argument against Cali's point than some I've seen. 
quote:
In the 19th Century, violent crime was far more likely to be committed in the US by white men against everyone. Black people didn't account for a majority of violent crimes until fairly recently in American history, probably the 1950s and later when the majority of Black people began living in cities.
So, can we make a deterimination that Black people are biologically more likely to committ a violent crime based on 50 years out of 8,000? Seems kind, well, f*cking stupid if you ask me. |
No more can we determine whether God exists or not...
...
That's something I see far too much in this threads (and all its predecessors.
Just because you don't like a case doesn't mean you'd be trying to close it at every opportunity. I mean, cmon, this is a strategy used by Christian fundamentalists trying to get out of a Creation-Evolution debate.
Any topic is worthy of discussion. If it goes against your tastes - too bad. Science doesn't care about taste.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
|
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
But if that were the case, it would be noted in scientific journals. Black people and white people and Asian would have to have different medicines or levels of medicine. Neither is true. While it's possilbe that hormone levels might have been affected, unless there is some reason that the carriers of this defect would be more likely to survive and propagate their genes, it won't spread.
For example, 14% of Europeans and their decendents carry a mutation that makes them more able to resist plague (and in an interesting turn of events, HIV as well). Because Plague killed off such a large percentage of its victims in Europe, those with the mutation were more likely than others to pass that mutation on to their decendants. |
Some aspects of behavior - what you call "instinct" - is innate and genetically encoded, whether in terms of brain structure, nervous system, hormones, whatever. Different environments would certainly select for different traits in this area. Probably not in the way that racists advocate, but still, the possibility is not just there, it's almost certain.
And oh yes: among Asians there is a high rate of lactose intolerance. There's your example of different races being chemically different, not just in terms of melanin.
quote:
It's not because I find the topic distasteful that I say case closed, it's because there is no good argument against what I just wrote. I win, therefore case closed.  |
well... don't declare yourself winner till you've addressed my points...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
|
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
First off, there certainly are non-physical differences between peoples living in different areas of the world (though, they are insignificant). However, these differences don't amount to fundamentally different behavior. |
Physical differences, however, show that differences in behavior, even minor ones, are not impossible - they're likely.
quote:
The primary reason why there wouldn't be differences in, say, the propensity to committ crimes or intelligence is that there is no conceivable selective pressure. And if you look at environmentally similar places (i.e. rainforests in South Asia and Africa), there are often wide divergences in percieved agressiveness and intelligence. |
Yes, that's a good point. However, you haven't defended your point that hence there would be no disparity at all.
quote:
That's absolutely true. Dividing the people into a few distinct "races" is absurd. It's meaningless and intellectually lazy. |
Race is a catch-all term for the genotypic differences between people of say, European, Asian, or African descent.
As such, it's as important and as useful as, say, classifying stars into OBAFGKM, or rocks into igneous, metamorphic, sedimentary. All stars and all rocks are unique - yet there are factors and trends that should be investiaged.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Physical differences, however, show that differences in behavior, even minor ones, are not impossible - they're likely. |
No they don't. They show that different climates select different physical traits. That's all they show, nothing more.
quote:
Yes, that's a good point. However, you haven't defended your point that hence there would be no disparity at all. |
I haven't asserted that. I was merely showing that there is absolutely no valid reason to think so, and flies in the face of scientific evidence. I can't show you there's no invisible pink unicorn on the dark side of the moon, so does it warrant evistigation?
quote:
Race is a catch-all term for the genotypic differences between people of say, European, Asian, or African descent. |
There are very few genotypic traits that most Africans share, and most Europeans share, but are mutually exclusive between the two groups.
quote:
As such, it's as important and as useful |
How is important or useful?
quote:
All stars and all rocks are unique - yet there are factors and trends that should be investiaged. |
The main "trend" is skin color, and there's no point in investigating that. There are a few other trends which pertain to disease resistances and the like, but they generally don't follow the "racial" groupings very well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ranskaldan
Some aspects of behavior - what you call "instinct" - is innate and genetically encoded, whether in terms of brain structure, nervous system, hormones, whatever. Different environments would certainly select for different traits in this area. Probably not in the way that racists advocate, but still, the possibility is not just there, it's almost certain. |
If differences in these areas exist, they are hardly significant. Instinct among humans, while it does exist, are largely limited to the interaction with infants. Infants across the planet have the same needs.
quote:
And oh yes: among Asians there is a high rate of lactose intolerance. There's your example of different races being chemically different, not just in terms of melanin. |
That may be cultural. Simply, if humans don't continue drinking milk past childhood, they might lose the ability to tolerate milk. It's hard to know whether lactose intolerance causes avoidance of milk or vice versa. The truth is likely both, as we are the only animal that regularly drinks milk past infancy. Mongols drink mares' milk, btw, so lactose intolerance isn't an Asian universal. Many Africans also have lactose intolerence, but there are also nations like the Masai who practice cattle-husbandry and live off of milk products. And there are also many caucasians with lactose-intolerence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tuberski
I think it should be changed to this:
Anyway, "racist" government policy combined with social "racism" has historically, denied people equal opportunity based on race, and it still continues today. Companies discriminate based on "race", but are not caught, because they invent a false, trumped up reason.
"racist" discrimination perpetuates poverty, due to lack of opportunities to improve one's livliehood. Poverty, in turn, increases the possibility of impoverished people to turn to criminal activity, regardless what "race" you are.
So, fundamentally, "racist" discrimination has caused many individuals within the minority groups to turn to criminal activity, not "race" itself.
At least according to others in this thread, since we are all the same "race".
ACK! |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
|
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
No they don't. They show that different climates select different physical traits. That's all they show, nothing more. |
Different climates select not just for physical traits. If that is so then there wouldn't be such a thing as animal behavior.
quote:
I haven't asserted that. I was merely showing that there is absolutely no valid reason to think so, and flies in the face of scientific evidence. I can't show you there's no invisible pink unicorn on the dark side of the moon, so does it warrant evistigation? |
If it can be shown that there are blue, green, and orange unicorns there, then yes, pink unicorns warrant investigation.
Similarly, if there are differences in terms of skin color, skeleton structure, etc etc, then other differences should be investigated.
quote:
There are very few genotypic traits that most Africans share, and most Europeans share, but are mutually exclusive between the two groups.
How is important or useful?
The main "trend" is skin color, and there's no point in investigating that. There are a few other trends which pertain to disease resistances and the like, but they generally don't follow the "racial" groupings very well. |
Science is based on such trends. Human beings are complex animals and hence there are no absolutes. But nevertheless there is strong correspondence between dark hair, dark skin, brown eyes, thick lips and a slightly higher instance of sickle-cell anemia. That's the trend. And we term such trends "race".
quote:
How are you going to stop that? |
That's beside the point. You're confusing what is true and what should be known. Just because something shouldn't necessarily be known by the public doesn't mean it's false.
quote:
That may be cultural. Simply, if humans don't continue drinking milk past childhood, they might lose the ability to tolerate milk. It's hard to know whether lactose intolerance causes avoidance of milk or vice versa. The truth is likely both, as we are the only animal that regularly drinks milk past infancy. Mongols drink mares' milk, btw, so lactose intolerance isn't an Asian universal. Many Africans also have lactose intolerence, but there are also nations like the Masai who practice cattle-husbandry and live off of milk products. And there are also many caucasians with lactose-intolerence. |
See the previous discussions about trends.
quote:
Public opinion counts for squat. Biologically there is only one human race. Social races, of which most people think when when they hear the term race, are arbitrarily determined. For example, a person who would be considered Black in the US goes to Apartheid South Africa. Under the laws of the regime, he is legally white. In 19th century California, there were legally three races: white, Black, and Indian. Mexicans were legally considered Indians and Chinese were legally Black. A White man in Haiti would most likely be considered Black in the US. |
I think you mean "species", not race.
Race refers to the trends that you find among people from different continents/regions. The very reason why you can even talk of "blacks", "Mexicans", "Chinese" etc is because there are certain features that blacks, Mexicans and Chinese tend to have. This is termed "race", and is purely a scientific term, in the same way we talk of "strains" or "breeds".
In a way, you're right, such classifications are arbitrary. But then, so is most of the rest of scientific classification.
Last edited by ranskaldan on 10-11-2002 at 08:19
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Different climates select not just for physical traits. If that is so then there wouldn't be such a thing as animal behavior. |
You're not reading what I wrote. Different climates select certain physical traits in humans implies just that. Not anything else.
quote:
If it can be shown that there are blue, green, and orange unicorns there, then yes, pink unicorns warrant investigation.
Similarly, if there are differences in terms of skin color, skeleton structure, etc etc, then other differences should be investigated. |
That's silly. There's absolutely no reason to think so since there is no concievable differential in selective pressures on these traits. On the other hand, there are differentials between various environments in selective pressures for certain melanin densities, and the like.
quote:
Science is based on such trends. Human beings are complex animals and hence there are no absolutes. But nevertheless there is strong correspondence between dark hair, dark skin, brown eyes, thick lips and a slightly higher instance of sickle-cell anemia. That's the trend. And we term such trends "race".[/qutoe]
che has addressed this well.
[quote]That's beside the point. You're confusing what is true and what should be known. Just because something shouldn't necessarily be known by the public doesn't mean it's false. |
That's precisley the point and I'm not confusing anything. I was explaining why I wouldn't want to know or don't think anyone ought to know if what you propose were true. Such information is morally outrageous given such an its likely consequences.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
|
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Biologically, ranskaldan, the term race is used to differentiate different members of the same species that cannot interbreed. This definition does not apply to human beings. There is only one biological race among humans.
The scientific term for what people very think of as race is phenotype. However, because there are no clearly demarcated races, but rather a continuous spectrum of human beings from the fairest Icelandics to the darkest sub-Saharan Africans, it cannot be exactly determined where one phenotype begins and other ends. |
Go look it up in a dictionary. A race refers to groups within the same species that are phenotypically different but can interbreed. Two organisms that cannot interbreed belong to different species.
Hence, race = group displaying trends in phenotype.
quote:
That's silly. There's absolutely no reason to think so since there is no concievable differential in selective pressures on these traits. On the other hand, there are differentials between various environments in selective pressures for certain melanin densities, and the like. |
But why wouldn't different environments select for different hormonal levels, for instance?
quote:
That's precisley the point and I'm not confusing anything. I was explaining why I wouldn't want to know or don't think anyone ought to know if what you propose were true. Such information is morally outrageous given such an its likely consequences. |
The same can be spoken of atheism. Atheism is repugnant because it removes the carrot-and-stick that keeps human beings morally in line.
On the other hand, that does not make atheism more or less true. Whether atheism is true depends on scientific observation, not moral judgements.
quote:
The fact that Mongols drink milk seems to argue against the idea that Asians are genetically unable to digest milk. Rather, they simply stop drinking it once they reach a certain age, and lose the ability to drink milk since they are no longer needing those enzymes. It might be that Mongols who were lactose-intolerant were outbred by lactose-tolerant Mongols. Lactose tolerance is a handy trait in a culture that is highly dependent on milk. Of course, if your people were lactose-intolerant to begin with, you have to wonder why they developed a culture based on milk. |
I'm still talking about trends. Even if 2% of Europeans are lactose-intolerant, and 5% of Asians are, that's still a trend.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ranskaldan
Go look it up in a dictionary. A race refers to groups within the same species that are phenotypically different but can interbreed. Two organisms that cannot interbreed belong to different species. |
I don't use dictionaries to define scientific terms. I use science courses and books to do that.
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 10-11-2002 at 09:36
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
But why wouldn't different environments select for different hormonal levels, for instance? |
Why would they? The burden of proof is on you.
quote:
The same can be spoken of atheism. Atheism is repugnant because it removes the carrot-and-stick that keeps human beings morally in line. |
Atheism is morally righteous because it liberates people from the authority of doctrine, to seek a morality rooted in compassion for other human beings. Atheists are no less "in line" (by that, I mean they don't committ more murders, etc.) than theists.
Morality can be either good or bad. Just because it's rooted in a religious doctrine doesn't make it good, and just because it isn't doesn't make it bad.
quote:
On the other hand, that does not make atheism more or less true. Whether atheism is true depends on scientific observation, not moral judgements. |
Again, that post wasn't addressing the truthfulness of your claims. Just whether anyone has any business investigating them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ranskaldan
If so, then whichever book you're using has just equated race and species. In that case, race is a meaningless term. |
It is a meaningless term as far as humans are concerned. Other species do have races, however. The term, therefore has meaning in relation to biologists.
BTW, in some cases, members of different species in the same genus can interbreed (horses and donkeys, lions and tigers). Races aren't incapable of interbreeding, they simply won't interbreed. (My previous use of can't was an overstatement.)
quote:
But as far as I and the rest of the world is concerned, race refers to subspecial groups displaying trends in phenotypes. That's what you're arguing against. |
As I pointed out twice before in this thread alone, there is a biological term and a social term. What is happening, is that biological traits are being ascribed to social catagories. This is what I am arguing against. You might as well assert that there are biological differences between the rich and poor. It makes as much sense.
And don't assert you stand for the rest of the world. That the general public might use a word one way doesn't mean that the word isn't used scientifically another way. And the general public, as a whole, doesn't use the word that was as there is a strong push to use only the scientific definition.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-11-2002 10:59
|