Pants=of=dog wrote:For those who think there are biological races, please name them.
Talking about Fallacies!
Talk about Disingenuity..
What I have been saying/Demonstrating/Proving is that there Are large enough differences For Human subspecies/Races.
OBVIOUSLY they have not been named yet officially, but many biologists, as Coyne says, use from 3 to over thirty.
(that would include, ie, the classic but overly simple '3', Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid)
National Geograhic's Genographics Project use 11. Send in your [biological basis] Blood and they will tell you what Percent of each 'indignous people'/RACE you are.
Also Refuting Bulaba Jones' "no biological basis" too.
One might use, ie, if we can get over the politics:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_2.htm wrote:-Homo sapiens Eoropeus albescens - - ("white" people from Europe)
-Homo sapiens Africanus negreus - - - -("black" people from Africa)
-Homo sapiens Asiaticus fucus - - - - - -("dark" people from Asia)
-Homo sapiens Americanus rubescens - ("red" people from the Americas)
Or, ie, 'Homo sapiens aboriginalis' for the Obviously UNIQUE natives of Australia who were geographically Island Isolated for 50,000 years.
BTW,
the Pygmy Mammoth became/evolved into not just a Separate subspecies/RACE after 30,000 years of Island Isolation, but a fully separate larger difference 'Species.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_mammoth#EvolutionBUT there is political flak for human Pygmys or Australian aboriginals.
Bulaba Jones wrote:Maybe if Abu Afak uses more b]bold [/b]and italics and underlining and sizing, people will listen to him more and give his race theories the respect they deserve.
... No? Okay, then.
For the record, while unique genetic characteristics can exist across ethnicities, there is in fact no biological basis for "race".
1. Irrelevant objection to style.
2. A 100% Empty claim that there is no biological basis for race. (
even while you Conradict yourself with "Unique genetic characteristics across ethnicities".. which IS Race. LOFL)
I suggest you try and rebut my Meaty posts/evidence on pages, 7, 8, 9, 10....
INSTEAD of empty semantic-substitute pronouncements which actually IS unwittingly admitting/describing... Race.
3. If you weren't Biased on this matter, You might want to Note the last Page's more Stupendous BONERS instead of my highlighting.
You know, Harmattan's 'Races of Dogs', and one of the ALL time most Ignorant: Kobe's "Appeal to Expertise Fallacy"!
I'll never get over the latter one.
Yeah,
according to Kobe, we can't ask/cite Einstein about Relativity, or our doctors about remedies. That's the "Appealing to Expertise fallacy"!
Like I said on the last page..
The problem/Ignorance with ALL of you is you have NO frame of reference with other species to be able to see how easily we qualify for subspecies/Race.
ie, do you object to Gorillas and Chimps have subspecies/Races, even different Species among them?
(if those primates were PC-conscious they too might Object!)
Would you be shocked to learn that the 4 Chimp subspecies are about the same genetic distance as ours who don't have designation?
Of course you would.
This is NOT science to ANY of you, it's Politics.
There are Many subspecies that have Less genetic and morphological distance than we do who Do who have uncontroversial subspecies/Races.
But we're talking Politics here.
PS: what's also obvious here is who is Fluent on this topic, and who the Know-nothing PC Harrassers are.
-
EDIT to mikema63 BelowALL of your overly splintered/Less than 1-thought Abuse of the multiquote, Goofy one-line objections were dealt with on previous pages.
Including, again, pages 7, 8, 9, etc.
And love how you just dismiss perhaps the world's foremost expert on Evo/Speciation Coyne as "wrong".
Comical post/obligatory harrassment, as always.