Love makes the world nice wrote:
There's only one race of humans.
There be only 1 race of dog: Dog. You can you dog a german shepheard--that mean you bias. You call it poodle? You bias. There be only 1 race of dog:
DOG.
Love makes the world nice wrote:
There's only one race of humans.
There be only 1 race of dog: Dog. You can you dog a german shepheard--that mean you bias. You call it poodle? You bias. There be only 1 race of dog:
DOG.
Bone density, testosterone level, resistance to malaria, muscle twitch types, melanin level, body fat percentage...
There are groups of people who evolved in the same region of the world who generally share a variety of traits. You can call these groups "races" or whatever the hell you want. Yeah, there was some mixing, but that didn't turn Africans white and it didn't give native Inuits long limbs and high testosterone levels.
fdcx wrote:
Gary Oldman wrote:That just confirms that we are separate races if you can say mixed.
Nope. It's only an easy answer for those dumb enough to ask that literally everyone in the world can say. Or if I was in an argumentative mood I might say there is only one race.
What if you are a San Bushman?
Clearly, there are the sprints, middle distance, and distance. There also is indoor and outdoor. Are people under 30 too stupid to have learned this yet?
Just one class for GE credits wrote:
Typical runner or sockpuppet wrote:Is there a "black gene" that all black people have, and no non-black person has? No.
Are the clusters of genes that are found at different frequencies in different races? Yes.
1) No. It's a pigmentation level. All creatures have it.
2) There are no plural 'races' as you state. There is only one race, the Human Race.
1. Pigmentation is not a social construct (unless you are really deep into postmodernism)
2. The gene for sickle cell anemia is a classic case of genes that are more common among blacks, although there are whites with the gene and blacks without it.
3. More generally, progressives in other contexts recognize the need to test drugs on different ethnic groups because there may be slight differences in biochemistry.
4. Once again, in other contexts even progressives recognize that Africans actually have greater genetic diversity than Caucasians (because the selection of only certain subpopulations leaving Africa).
People over 30 didn't learn the truth.
Star wrote:
Race is used by people to draw distinctions among people, so there are multiple races of humans.
Problem is, there is no consensus of scientific distinction to match how races are defined.
So they get defined mostly be geographical origin but really it's about skin color and hair type.
The 15th amendment prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race.
If there weren't perceived different races than this amendment would not be necessary.
if...then
rather than, greater than, more than...
Republicans are so stupid. There is no gene that distinguishes a tree from a donkey or a reptile from a fire hydrant. Distinctions like race, species, genus, etc. are social constructs that Republicans like the Koch Bros. made up justify mankind's feeling of superiority so we can keep chopping down trees and turning them into pulp and paper products!!! At the end of the day you have to realize that we are all composed of carbon. There is only ONE domain of life: organisms.
why are you ignorantly stereotyping people over 30?
abos of Australia owned that place for 10000 years and all they invented was stick LOL. Its' really telling that best thing to happen to australia was it being it turned into a prisoners colon! Lol
Typical runner or sockpuppet wrote:
Just one class for GE credits wrote:1) No. It's a pigmentation level. All creatures have it.
2) There are no plural 'races' as you state. There is only one race, the Human Race.
1. Pigmentation is not a social construct (unless you are really deep into postmodernism)
2. The gene for sickle cell anemia is a classic case of genes that are more common among blacks, although there are whites with the gene and blacks without it.
3. More generally, progressives in other contexts recognize the need to test drugs on different ethnic groups because there may be slight differences in biochemistry.
4. Once again, in other contexts even progressives recognize that Africans actually have greater genetic diversity than Caucasians (because the selection of only certain subpopulations leaving Africa).
There is also genetic clustering within or between groups that are so small no-one could conceivably call them "races". For instance, there is quite alot of genetic difference between Sardinians and mainland Italians, but no-one would ever claim these are distinct "races". Likewise, there is a whole spectrum of genetic differences and clustering as you move from white skinned north africans to black sub-saharan africans. Go to Morocco and you will see loads of black arabs.
Basically, there are genetic differences, but they are along a spectrum. A far cry from the distinct classifications that people believe in.
An Anthropologist wrote:
For race to exist biologically it necessarily means that there would have to multiple subspecies, which there are not. We are one race, Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Not true. Only Sub-Saharan Africans are 100% Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Europeans, Asians, Native Americans are 98-99% H.S.S, 1-2% Neanderthal. Melanesians, Polynesians, Australian Aborigines are 97% H.S.S, 3% Denisovan. This is the current Scientific Consensus.
Why don't people pay attention to definitions anymore? Words do have actual meanings.
Race
1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology.
a. (no longer in technical use) any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a socially constructed category of identification based on physical characteristics, ancestry, historical affiliation, or shared culture:
d. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
I will agree with only one race. The thing that makes it hard to understand is were and how people are raised.
A inner city black kid
A suburban white kid
Difference ????
Human race ???
White /black / Hispanic? ?
We are all different.
Also Man wrote:
DukeBoss wrote:Because its true. There are man and woman.
Woman are definitely another race.
Also Mets fans
Unbelievable.
Because race is a nice way of saying different species.
Just like black, brown and polar bears. Different species but they can cross bread. Similar but different.
You're argument is destroyed by the fact that scientists can determine "race" in a skeleton.
Asian, African, European etc...
because they're right wrote:
Because race is a nice way of saying different species.
Just like black, brown and polar bears. Different species but they can cross bread. Similar but different.
You're argument is destroyed by the fact that scientists can determine "race" in a skeleton.
Asian, African, European etc...
More like sub-species. Think more like an African lion and an Asiatic lion.
not quite right wrote:
because they're right wrote:Because race is a nice way of saying different species.
Just like black, brown and polar bears. Different species but they can cross bread. Similar but different.
You're argument is destroyed by the fact that scientists can determine "race" in a skeleton.
Asian, African, European etc...
More like sub-species. Think more like an African lion and an Asiatic lion.
I'll concede to different sub-species.
Race can be determined from DNA. In fact it's gotten so good that they can identify through remains that a person was 40% white indicating that a grandparent was most likely white. A single gene can't necessarily differentiate your mother from a kangaroo. But scientists can still use DNA to determine species, and "race" or subspecies.
Typical runner or sockpuppet wrote:
Just one class for GE credits wrote:2) There are no plural 'races' as you state. There is only one race, the Human Race.
1. Pigmentation is not a social construct (unless you are really deep into postmodernism)
2. The gene for sickle cell anemia is a classic case of genes that are more common among blacks, although there are whites with the gene and blacks without it.
3. More generally, progressives in other contexts recognize the need to test drugs on different ethnic groups because there may be slight differences in biochemistry.
4. Once again, in other contexts even progressives recognize that Africans actually have greater genetic diversity than Caucasians (because the selection of only certain subpopulations leaving Africa).
Black Gene wrote:
Race can be determined from DNA. In fact it's gotten so good that they can identify through remains that a person was 40% white indicating that a grandparent was most likely white. A single gene can't necessarily differentiate your mother from a kangaroo. But scientists can still use DNA to determine species, and "race" or subspecies.
Best yo mamma joke I've heard in a year!!!