[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Maybe if Abu Afak uses more bold 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".

[abu afak]

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:

-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#Evolution
BUT there is political flak for human Pygmys or Australian aboriginals.

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 Below
ALL 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.

[mikema63]

What I have been saying/Demonstrating/Proving is that there Are large enough differences For Human subspecies/Races.

You can only have taxonomic subspecies if those groups do not interbreed. There are no human subspecies because we all interbreed with one another.

OBVIOUSLY they have not been named yet officially, but many biologists, as Coyne says, use from 3 to over thirty.

Coyne is wrong, most biologists don't deal with race at all. You may be confusing anthropology with biology. Race is certainly a viable anthropological concept, but it is not a viable biological concept.

(that would include, ie, the classic simple 3, Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid)

The are actually the worst possible examples of subspecies you could bring up, there has been gene flow between these groups for thousands of years. There is also not a hard line between these groups, you get progressively lighter skinned as you move away from the equator for example. There isn't a hard break between being negroid and being Caucasoid, it's a continuum.

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.

The way this is done is to look at mutations in segments of DNA that have long repeats of the same allele. A mutation in that segment will break the repeating pattern and be passed down. Its a simple affair to use PCR to copy the repeating segments and look at the lengths of each segment and trace ancestry. You can also look at Mitochondrial DNA and at the Y chromosome (the Y chromosome is passed down from father to son and is always identical except for mutations going back to before human being were human).

The thing with Long repeating DNA segments, mtDNA, and the Y chromosome is that they don't do anything. These are neutral mutations that just represent genetic distance but no actual biological functions.

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#Evolution
BUT there is political flak for human Pygmys or Australian aboriginals.

To be considered a seperate species the two groups must not be able to produce viable offspring together, this can actually happen in a single mutation.

A group of snails can have a single mutation that reverses the spiral on their shell and makes it so they can no longer mate with the normal snail. If this mutations happens a few times in a million snails you suddenly have a viable new species in a single generation.

This however says nothing about humans because things don't speciate at the same rate. There is now also gene flow between the rest of humanity and the aboriginals so they cannot qualify as a subspecies.

ie, do you object to Gorillas and Chimps have subspecies/Races, even differenet Species among them?

If they are isolated and do not breed with each other than there is no objection to be made, unlike with humans.

Would you be shocked to learn that the 4 Chimp subspecies are about the same genetic distance as ours who don't have designation?

Would you be shocked if I told you that the genetic difference between two randomly selected people from within the same race is greater than the total genetic difference between two races?

This is NOT science to ANY of you, it's Politics.

I study molecular biology, this is most certainly science to me.

There are Many subspeiecs that have Less geneic and morphological distance than we do who Do who have uncontroversial subspecies/Races.

Subspecies must not have any gene flow. We do.

But we're talking Politics here.

Your arrogance amuses me.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Abu, you aren't speaking to random people. Many of the people making recent replies are thoroughly familiar with concepts of race and ethnicity as it pertains to biology and social constructs. Race is a social construct. An example of a "unique" genetic characteristic might be Tay-Sachs disease among a percentage of Ashkenazi Jews, or sickle-celled anemia among populations of sub-Saharan Africans. The genetic variation among members of any ethnicity is incredibly small to the point of negligability. "Black" includes people with skin lighter than many "whites". A century ago, Italians and Irish were generally not considered white. Slavs were also not considered "white" by many Western and Central Europeans mere decades ago. Ethnicities exist, but what constitutes a race is, as you point out yourself, entirely a social construct:

OBVIOUSLY they have not been named yet officially, but many biologists, as Coyne says, use from 3 to over thirty.

There is no biological basis for overarching umbrellas constituting "race", it is entirely whatever people want to come up with. Most of us refer to race when we need to: blacks, whites, Caucasians, Europeans, Asians, Africans, etc, but it's important to keep in mind these are based entirely in the human imagination.

The reason you aren't receiving long responses going point-by-point on what you say is partly because of your demeanor: if you toned down the excessive amount of giggling/lol stuff (which is generally going to be too low-brow for people to respond with any degree of seriousness) and text editing, you might get more responses. The other is that people here generally don't want to respond to someone peddling race theory stuff. What makes it worse is that your posts ramble and, frankly, look pretty loony.

[abu afak]

Abu, you aren't speaking to random people. Many of the people making recent replies are thoroughly familiar with concepts of race and ethnicity as it pertains to biology and social constructs. Race is a social construct. An example of a "unique" genetic characteristic might be Tay-Sachs disease among a percentage of Ashkenazi Jews, or sickle-celled anemia among populations of sub-Saharan Africans. The genetic variation among members of any ethnicity is incredibly small to the point of negligability. "Black" includes people with skin lighter than many "whites". A century ago, Italians and Irish were generally not considered white. Slavs were also not considered "white" by many Western and Central Europeans mere decades ago. Ethnicities exist, but what constitutes a race is, as you point out yourself, entirely a social construct:

There is no biological basis for overarching umbrellas constituting "race", it is entirely whatever people want to come up with. Most of us refer to race when we need to: blacks, whites, Caucasians, Europeans, Asians, Africans, etc, but it's important to keep in mind these are based entirely in the human imagination.

The reason you aren't receiving long responses going point-by-point on what you say is partly because of your demeanor: if you toned down the excessive amount of giggling/lol stuff (which is generally going to be too low-brow for people to respond with any degree of seriousness) and text editing, you might get more responses. The other is that people here generally don't want to respond to someone peddling race theory stuff. What makes it worse is that your posts ramble and, frankly, look pretty loony.

So now you have been reduced to only quoting ONE of my sentences!
Nice WHIFF on virtually Everything, including NatGeo's Genographic project which uses far more than 'Tay Sachs'
It uses Scores of "Biological Basis" genetic Bloodmarkers for Each RACE.
You Lose.
Your Nonanswer to the Bulk of my of Post and it's Large points is beyond Disingenuous.

And Again, on pages 7, 8, 9, etc I posted Tons of material, including Forensic anthropologists who actually use Race in their daily work, including Legal cases, and oft from Skeletal remains alone.
I will probably post them again due to the Dishonesty and Denial of virtually Everyone here.
And another who feels completely free to just Ignore Coyne, perhaps the planet's foremost expert on Evo and Speciation.
Or perhaps Bulaba doesn't, so must be blind to it/Ignore it to maintain his politics-as-fashion.

"Black" includes people with skin lighter than many "whites".

I also want to deal with this one specific point because it demonstrates YOUR use of 'race' is COLLOQUIAL NOT Scientific.
I have said many times, Race is NOT just about Color, or Tay Sachs, or one, or 10, or 1000, or even 10,000 genes.
Of 3 Billion pairs it may use (.5%) 15 Million Different ones.
Race/subspecies is about SETS of features.
So that even if a Pygmy was an albino, he would be Easily distinguished from Scandinavian or NE Asian.
AGAIN, Again, again... it's Not 'just melanin'.
The two genetically most distant races are both people of Color: subsaharan Africans and Australian Aboriginals.

The people here are so Ignorant they think this is Social: about 'Blacks', Whites', and cops.
THAT is the level you are talking on.
ie, American 'Blacks' are NOT a 'Race', they are a young and varying Mix/Hybrid of subsaharan blacks and Euro-Caucs.
I understand/talk Science, while you use mere 'color' for race, and minimize the differences because you know NOT how significant they are, and you know no bio/taxonomic science.
-

[Pants-of-dog]

I noticed you did not name them.

[abu afak]

I noticed you did not name them.

DISHONEST reply
Asked and Answered.
AGAIN:
- - - - - - - -

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:
[quote="http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_2.htm]
-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)[/quote]

Or, ie, 'Homo sapiens aboriginalis' for the Obviously UNIQUE natives of Australia who were geographically Island Isolated for 50,000 years.....
- - - - - - - -- -

Being NONconversant on the topic/Contributing Nothing, Pant-of-Dogs post doing just his usual TROLLING.
Pure harrassment/repeat.
Because there are Not NEW more technical NAMES Yet, does NOT mean they don't exist.
(As yet Unnamed Comets/Stars/Galaxies exist as well)
And there are already THREE I don't necessarily like, but which are already names above.


EDIT:
as to Mikema63 aboved, EVERYTHING he said was Refuted directly at him on page 8, starting at the Top
Yet we get repeat after repeat.
`

[ThirdTerm]

-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)

The man who invented the taxomonical classification of H. sapiens is Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, a 18th-century German anthropologist. Blumenbach divided the human species into five races in 1779 based on the measurement of craniums. During the 18th century, most of the taxonomists and naturalists in Europe were trying to classify biological variation around humans in terms of their limited scientific knowledge at the time. In ancient China, the Five Elements were regarded as the foundation of everything in the universe and natural phenomena.

[abu afak]

[im/g]http://www.understandingrace.org/images/482x270/science/early_class.jpg[/img]

The man who invented the taxomonical classification of H. sapiens is Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, a 18th-century German anthropologist. Blumenbach divided the human species into five races in 1779 based on the measurement of craniums. During the 18th century, most of the taxonomists and naturalists in Europe were trying to classify biological variation around humans in terms of their limited scientific knowledge at the time. In ancient China, the Five Elements were regarded as the foundation of everything in the universe and natural phenomena....

So what?
ALL Linean Taxonomy started in the 18th Century.
That's when we traveled enough to Notice there are different Subspecies//Races among thousands of living things.
ALL Taxonomy is a "Social Construct".
Of course, that doesn't mean it's Not Real.
And the ONLY Taxonomic construct that most reject is Humans/POLITICAL.
As I said, they have NO frame of reference how little it takes to rate delimitation as race/subspecies.

And your Chinese graph is your usual Irrelevant Graphic Link dump seeking to defame 18th century knowledge.
Of course, it has NOTHING to do with Race or Euro Taxonomy.

https://jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-r ... lconstruct

[....]
2. Race is a social construct and doesn’t exist.

Well, yes, race IS a social construct. But race does exist. Saying something is a “social construct” can be true and still yet not be really meaningful.

Think of it, the periodic table of chemical elements is a social construct. Do chemical elements then not exist?
Or, much more relevant – in fact, exactly like race – Linnaean taxonomy is a social construct.
Do kingdoms, classes, species not exist?
Race is merely an extension of this.

In reality, genetic analysis can Separate human populations into Distinct groups. This works at the level of continental groups or even ethnic groups within a continent (or even groups within an ethnicity).
At times the progression is smooth, with each group gradually giving way to the next, and at other times, the transition is abrupt...
[...]

`

[Pants-of-dog]

Sorry, but your writing is atrocious.

You mention at least three lists of races. Which of those lists is the correct one?

You can just say there is no correct one, if you want.

[abu afak]

Sorry, but your writing is atrocious.
You mention at least three lists of races. Which of those lists is the correct one?
You can just say there is no correct one, if you want.

I have been suggesting/elaborating that the concept of Human Races is Justified.
I do NOT have to pre-name them for it to be so.
It's 40 IQ Trolling to suggest there have to be "names for them" in ADVANCE of Official bodies agreeing with me.
/end of your whole BS routine
Nevertheless, what I did do was post previous names, and ones suggested by Others based on geography or trait.
Your logic is atrocious, and your posts juvenile Trolling.
You have contributed NOTHING to this debate.
-
EDIT:
Oh baby, looks whose back below!
It's "the Appeal To Expertise Fallacy" kobe.
Hey Kobe, can I cite Einstein on Relativity, or is that "the appeal to Expertise Fallacy"?

This place really needs to be given a rest til the opposition gets worthy.
bye for now.

[kobe]

Go ahead, report him because you can't put forth a framework for your racial hypothesis. How can we critique your claims when we have no basis on which to critique them?

Lets start with "Negroids" and "Caucasoids". Do you deny that there is gene flow between them? I only need to point to one continent. United States. Forced gene flow on account of the racial hierarchy system (raping slave women). Does this population entail a new race? Or does it invalidate the old concepts? I don't know, please answer abu afak.

[Conscript]

Sorry, but your writing is atrocious.

You mention at least three lists of races. Which of those lists is the correct one?

You can just say there is no correct one, if you want.

If everyone is seeing something, shouldn't your first inclination be to believe it's true? 100 different psychiatrists will give you 100 different answers, but...that doesn't mean mental illness doesn't exist and the practice is bunk.

[Pants-of-dog]

I have been suggesting/elaborating that the concept of Human Races is Justified.
I do NOT have to pre-name them for it to be so.
It's 40 IQ Trolling to suggest there have to be "names for them" in ADVANCE of official bodies agreeing with me.
/end of your whole BS routine.
Nevertheless, what I did do was post previous names, and ones suggested by Others based on geography or trait.
Your logic is atrocious, and your posts juvenile Trolling.
You will No longer be responded to, if this harrassment continues.
You have copntributed NOTHING to this debate.
-

So, you cannot name them.

If you cannot even name them, then how do you know they have genetic differences?

[kobe]

If everyone is seeing something, shouldn't your first inclination be to believe it's true? 100 different psychiatrists will give you 100 different answers, but...that doesn't mean mental illness doesn't exist and the practice is bunk.

Conscript, everyone agrees that race exists... as a cultural concept. In fact, many oppose the idea of trying to make academia "race blind" or "post racial" precisely because of the uneven burden this would place on those in historically oppressed "racial groups" (mostly blacks nowadays, also indigenous people). The problem is that race has fallen out of favor because its proponents cannot come up with a unified theory of what that might be without relying on culturally-based arguments. Furthermore, every single human on earth has a shared ancestor that was an anatomically modern human! We killed off or outlasted every other type of hominid. We can all interbreed (and have) and produce viable offspring. There are so many supposed "truths" that the scientific races have purported to be "reality" that ended up as falsehoods that the theory as a biological idea has proven to be useless.

Also what "everyone sees" is different skin tones. But African population and Australian aboriginal have same skin tone, so even there the eyes cannot be trusted. Falsification is the basis of science, not observation.

[Hong Wu]

I'm pretty sure a bunch of Zulus sailed to Australia and colonized it which is why both Africa and Australia start with the letter A.

So when a black guy is black, his race is a social construct. But if a white person says that they're black, it's not a social construct, they're just crazy. And if I walk into the ladies' restroom it's inappropriate. But if I walk into the ladies' restroom wearing a skirt, I'm a freedom fighter and gender is a social construct. Any questions?

[kobe]

So when a black guy is black, his race is a social construct. But if a white person says that they're black, it's not a social construct, they're just crazy.

How is that analogous? Here's a better analogy. If a white person says they're black, they're trying to take advantage of social services that the black community had to fight for even though they have never experienced the prejudice associated with blackness. If black person says they are white, they are trying to escape the prejudice which they were destined for on the basis of cultural prejudices.

Several years ago, Stanford historian Allyson Hobbs was talking with a favorite aunt, who was also the family storyteller. Hobbs learned that she had a distant cousin whom she'd never met nor heard of.

Which is exactly the way the cousin wanted it.

Hobbs' cousin had been living as white, far away in California, since she'd graduated from high school. This was at the insistence of her mother.

"She was black, but she looked white," Hobbs said. "And her mother decided it was in her best interest to move far away from Chicago, to Los Angeles, and to assume the life of a white woman."

"Her mother really felt that this was the very best thing she could do for her daughter," Hobbs continued. "She felt this was a way to offer opportunities to her daughter that she wouldn't have living as a black woman on the South Side of Chicago."

...

Hobbs was haunted by the story, and constantly went back to it in her mind. It made her realize that all the tales she'd heard about passing over the years involved the gains that people expected for leaving their black identity behind. But through her research, she came to understand there was another, critical part of the experience:

"To write a history of passing is to write a history of loss."

...

Hobbs began writing about passing for her doctoral dissertation, and was encouraged to turn it into a book. The dissertation became A Chosen Exile: A History of Racial Passing in America. It's a history of passing told through the lens of personal stories.

Once Hobbs began researching, the stories came thick and fast. There was New Yorker Theophilus McKee, who'd chosen to live as a white man for all of his adult life. That's until he stepped forward to claim a huge inheritance as the only colored descendant of Negro Civil War veteran Col. John McKee. His claim and the court fight with his biracial siblings made national news.

There's the story of Harry S. Murphy, who was assigned as a ROTC cadet to the University of Mississippi by a commander who assumed Murphy was white. "For a year, Harry had a ball at Ole Miss," Hobbs laughs. "He ran track, dated white girls and was known as a terrific dancer." Years later, the university fought to keep James Meredith from registering as its first black student, Harry Murphy gleefully broke the news: "Ole Miss was fighting a battle they had no idea they'd lost years ago."

Then there's the sad tale of Elsie Roxborough, a beauty from a distinguished Detroit family who became the first black girl to live in a dorm at the University of Michigan. She tried acting in California, then moved to New York to live as a white woman. When her disapproving father refused to support her, Roxborough — then known as Mona Manet — committed suicide. Her grieving and equally pale sister passed as a white woman to claim the body, so Roxborough's secret wouldn't be given away. Her death certificate declared she was white.

...

In 1952, Jet magazine published an article predicting that passing was on the wane, at least for solvent black folks. "Most economically-sound Negroes who could 'pass' prefer being high-class Negroes to low-class whites," it opined.

Jet had jumped the gun a bit: Passing did not become passé for many more years. It's mostly viewed as a practice that belongs to a more sharply segmented racial past. The rise of a more diverse America, and a growing multicultural movement that insists on people's right to recognize all of their ethnicity, has helped racial passing pass into history.

As always, since you're a conservative you have to ignore historical context in order to keep your fantasy vision of the world going.

And if I walk into the ladies' restroom it's inappropriate. But if I walk into the ladies' restroom wearing a skirt, I'm a freedom fighter and gender is a social construct.

So you need to be kept from perving out on women while they're trying to discard excrement and urine by explicit order from society? and the people that are in the wrong are those that want to use a bathroom normally? Interesting.

Any questions?

Yeah, why is your argument so horrible?

[Hong Wu]

What if I'm not in there to perv, I'm just in there to use the restroom. But I'm not wearing a skirt or trying to look female. Problem?

[kobe]

What if I'm not in there to perv, I'm just in there to use the restroom. But I'm not wearing a skirt or trying to look female. Problem?

It depends on the community that you're in. I'm in favor of gender neutral bathrooms, myself. Bathrooms as they are have only existed for about a hundred years. You're not exactly defending "traditional bathroomage".