EVERYONE WHO HAS A FACEBOOK PLEASE LOGIN TO RT AMERICA (RT TV) WHERE THE RACE DENIERS ARE CLAIMING THAT RACIALLY AWARE WHITES ARE INNATELY MENTALLY DEFICIENT, CITING "SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE" FROM A HUFFINGTON POST ARTICLE PERTAINING TO CHILDHOOD "IQ STATISTICS" WHICH PREDICT QUOTE-UNQUOTE "RACISM" IN LATER LIFE AND REFUTE THEM!
Quote: "Next time you call group of right-wing racists a bunch of idiots, you can back yourself up with one simple word: Science!"
I'm gonna finish up for now asking what I always ask for & which no race realist has ever been able to supply even though the bare minimum of your world view should be able to handle it.
You're identifying something you call race & even examples of it. Define what you're talking about when you say "race" and "negroid" otherwise you're not identifying anything.
Or I don't have to define "Goobleys" nor define exactly why red haired, left handed lesbians are members of the Goobley I call Vavavoom.
“Race : A phenotypically and/or geographically distinctive subspecific group, composed of individuals inhabiting a defined geographical and/or ecological region, and possessing characteristic phenotypic and gene frequencies that distinguish it from other such groups.” King and Stansfield dictionary of genetics 1990.
"“Race : A phenotypically and/or geographically distinctive subspecific group, composed of individuals inhabiting a defined geographical and/or ecological region, and possessing characteristic phenotypic and gene frequencies that distinguish it from other such groups.” King and Stansfield dictionary of genetics 1990."
I would accept that as you probably won't find anything better but try again, something from after 2003 if you know what I mean. 1990 XD lolz.
Date has nothing to do with it, the definition is still valid.
"A population of interbreeding species that develops distinct characteristics differing from other populations of the same species, especially as caused by geographical isolation." Biology online (current).
I'll personally add: a race is a population, but a population isn't a race. Your attempted deconstruct is wholly built upon a category mistake. Races differ from any other group/population construct because they are persistently divergent populations resulting from geographical isolation & exposure to different kinds of environments.
I will only reply to actual arguments from now on...
Well I know there are human groups that exist which I call Goobleys. I have no interest in defining what delineates the Goobleys other than to give the example of left handed lesbians with red hair as being one of the Goobleys. This particular Goobley is called Vavavoom. Now you can sit here & argue all day against the existence of Goobleys even though we know that Vavavoom's exist. We can study the Goobleys & find all sorts of interesting differences such as hand use, melanoma risk & sex habits
But more importantly what does "black" mean? Or "African"? What exact attributes go into this biological taxonomic classification? List them all in a video. If the attributes of your "Homo sapiens sapiens negroid" don't come up to scratch with scientific consistency when compared to other sub species such as the African Elephant dichotomy based on genetics (Loxodonta africana/Loxodonta cyclotis) or any other such example in biology this is all wishful thinking. Define Negroid.
I'm personally not in the least bit interested in defining Negroid. Under evolution all traits are fragile. What I'm interested in is whether certain clusters of genes are diverging from other clusters over time.
To me races are divergent processes: individuals emerging from individuals.
What does that mean objectively? What type of entity would 'come up to scratch' to be accepted as a human subspecies & why?
NB: So far I'm seeing little objective method or criteria for acceptance or rejection of human subspecies. All rejections so far are ad hoc & bear more in common with literary criticism then they do with objective science.
"What type of entity would 'come up to scratch' to be accepted as a human subspecies & why?"
In his book on organisational systematics Bill McKelvey concedes that when looking for a model for systematics to be used in organising anything & everything the biologists were far ahead of anyone else & concludes that their methods of phylogenetic taxonomy set the most impressive benchmarks for identifying & classifying groups (not just living things) objectively.
There is no onus on me (I'm not a biologist or a systematist) to explain the finer details of biology's taxonomic method & why human "races" aren't included. Maybe you can ask someone who does this for a living like the YouTuber sofiarune.
But of course she's probably just a cultural marxist, leftist, egalitarian anti-white. Coz science is hard. Derpa derp.
I actually tried talking to sophiarune but she stopped replying to me after someone told her not to talk to me because I was a 'basically a Nazi or something', uh what? The same person also wandered onto my channel & accused me of wanting to send immigrants to death camps for absolutely no reason. This is the everyday craziness race-realists have to face.
"All rejections so far are ad hoc & bear more in common with literary criticism then they do with objective science"
Meanwhile I haven't seen a single argument FOR the existence of subcategories apart from "they must exist coz we're talking about them right now in terms of disease". LibRealist has pulled this creationist stunt before saying "Skepticalheretic uses studies that mention race to say race doesn't exist" just like "If you don't believe in God why do you hate him?"
@TheNarcMan “I haven't seen a single argument FOR the existence of...”
Human genetic variation, as shown in persistent genetic clustering corresponding to geographical origin, which correlates with race >99%. But deeper than that our inductive sensibilities, our innate faculties to recognise meaningful difference. Our ability to construct categories which though not of the world, can reference & point to actual things in the world in ways that are informative, measurable & predictive.
"Human genetic variation, as shown in persistent genetic clustering corresponding to geographical origin, which correlates with race >99%"
Four self identified "races"? Asian, Black, White & Hispanic? Those are the world's only races? And since when were different types of eagle or mollusc or honey bees asked to identify themselves to see if genetics matched their self identification? Self ID'd race is the epitome of a social construct & a folk taxonomy, not scientific.
Not to mention the fact that it's too vague so that even people like fringeelements have described categories like Asian as useless. Black? That's trite considering most variation is amongst Africans. What's Hispanic? A 'race' derived from admixture that could be anything from 95% black/5% Latin to 5% Latin/95% black? How very scientific.
The self ID stuff is probably the strongest thing you've got but even that is clearly folk taxonomy based on vague, useless social concepts
And even the story your DNA tells shouldn't really give racists the little hard on that it does. The results speak only of the geographical origins of your ancestors. To say this proves race exists is akin to saying "See? Humans have genes & DNA! Races exist!"
This was never in doubt amongst the sound of mind. What does this DNA say about biologically significant differences, especially regarding controversial concepts like IQ & behaviour? Oh. Nothing. Race is skin deep.
"Try not to flood me with questions & info – it gives me the impression you want to wear me out rather than reply!"
Sorry, I should do videos instead of troll comment sections. I might later this year once uni gets under way. Its just how I post comments coz heaps of shit just comes to mind at once.
"Self-ID assumes race to be social that is why it is used"
Yes race is social. Which is why it can be predicted from biology just like every other social construct, like occupation, or a sense of justice, or whether one is a sitzpinkler or not... ;0)
"Yes race is social. Which is why it can be predicted from biology just like every other social construct, like occupation, or a sense of justice, or whether one is a sitzpinkler or not... ;0)"
"Yes race is social. Which is why it can be predicted from biology just like every other social construct..."
Sorry I couldn't leave this alone.
Like religion? Can biology prove that God exists? Objective morality? Can biology prove there are universal laws written on the hearts of men? Gender roles? Can you prove women should get back in the kitchen? Is that why they have smaller feet, to get closer to the sink?
To claim that races must exist because we're sitting here talking about disease susceptibility amongst one of them (heart disease among African descendants) supposes that any disease or affliction spread out evenly among all populations makes us all a race & since we know we are collectively known as homo sapiens sapiens any such disease which affects all us with the same frequency & having the same affect on us proves our oneness as a group. Same reasoning different outcome.
"I'm personally not in the least bit interested in defining Negroid"
Because you can't. Nor any other "race".
"What I'm interested in is whether certain clusters of genes are diverging from other clusters over time"
Like they have amongst the nations states of Europe over the last 500 years thanks to tensions & hostilities amongst the Empires? So "French" is a race & clusters have also diverged in regions so French also has racial sub groups.
Well I can give you a definition of Negroid if you really want... But what would it prove? Biological structures are impermanent. Furthermore until I know what goalposts you think relevant it's a foregone conclusion that whatever I say will be dismissed.
You missed the very important bit “over time”. Recombination is a fact with populations that aren't isolated. Geographical clusters are exhibits of persistent isolation.
Biological taxonomy is not one thing set in stone, agree upon by all. That you present it as such is either because you lack the requisite knowledge or you are disingenuous.
Anyway my offer remains. Tell me your standard for subspecies acceptance & I will give you a purposeless definition of 'Negroid'. OR perhaps we can forget about that & try to engage in a productive discussion instead? Just a thought.
"OR perhaps we can forget about that & try to engage in a productive discussion instead? Just a thought"
No I'm not interested in giving you the biggest let off imaginable. If you can't or won't define what you're identifying how can I argue against it? You're being Joseph Smith with your gold plates in a hat. You're being a creationist douche. You're willing to sit here & argue for race but can't/won't define it. You can't even give an example of one. This goes for all of you
"Thats not what hes saying and he just explained that to you a few comments ago. He explicitly stated:
"Variation in disease susceptibility isnt sufficient to identify racial populations. The study of disease susceptibility in blacks presupposes that black populations have been identified via other indicators""
Right, which amounts to "We know races exist because we can look for disease susceptibility amongst them" as I said but "black" is a special classification not general
A) certain races are susceptible to certain medical conditions more than others.
Which does seem to be the case & is congruent with evolutionary expectations for subspecial variation. As are distributions of blood type, skin tone, etc... It may also be that some medical conditions vary with blood group, but there's no refutation of race implicit in the idea that some traits (or medical susceptibilities) vary by race & some don't.
@CeltoSaxonKnight A) You cannot define "race" strictly. But as a rough short-hand it works. Blood-groups are not uniformly distributed. You could say that someone from one town should donate and you would increase the contribution of the blood group distribution in that town. Given that it is different from another town, you can adjust your backstock. Doesn't mean that the town makes a "race". I can in fact pick random locations on the planet and get that effect.
@CeltoSaxonKnight Again sickle cell anemia is not linked to race. It just happens to be linked to high-malaria areas and hence has high co-occurance with what racists call subsaharan african "race". But look at the map for geography of sickle cell anemia and for what is called the african race and you understand that they are NOT the same. Same with blood groups. So yes it refutes this conflation of "race" with medical conditions.
"refutes this conflation of "race" with medical conditions"
If what you say is true then it does refute a sub-case of A regarding sickle-cell. However proposition A still stands unless it can be proved that, despite appearances, absolutely no medical conditions vary with race (which goes against the consensus opinion as far as I am aware.)
So are you suggesting absolutely no medical conditions vary with race?
@CeltoSaxonKnight Er no. Medical conditions vary within close relatives such as siblings. Are you proposing that you and your siblings and parents are different races? If yes why not call it individual differences? If no, where do you draw the line? And why? And yes if what someone claims reifies race doesn't in fact does the opposite it does refute race. Because you just made it up and your evidence failed your hypothesis. That's what falsifiability is.
"Medical conditions vary within close relatives such as siblings. Are you proposing that you and your siblings and parents are different races?"
Nope. The word we use for your parents and sibling is "family". F-a-m-i-l-y. Races are larger scale breeding populations that share distinctive traits.
"If no, where do you draw the line?"
It's arbitrary. We've said that, but nice continuum fallacy.
Yes but the hypothesis wasn't “race exists” but “certain medical conditions vary with race”. There is no refutation of race in refuting the latter.
No I'd be proposing some diseases vary with families, some with race. There's no need to draw a line. It's all information.
Why would anyone call a family a race? We have different concepts, name & definitions for family + race. A square shares some properties with a triangle – why would lead anyone call a triangle a square?
@CeltoSaxonKnight Yes certain medical conditions vary with circles you can draw on the map. That is correct. That does not make the race concept real or biological. But I am not naive. LibertarianRealist is a race realist. He is NOT making this argument to allow blood banks to get a practical shorthand to balance their blood group backstock. Ethnicity is a sensibly working method to do that. This is just a part of the apologetics why race is supposedly biological when it's not.
@CeltoSaxonKnight So yes if we actually want to talk about how blood groups, disease patterns etc work, we should talk about what really is the case. Malaria prevelance, not "race" predicts sickle cell anemia. Blood groups vary in a pattern that does not conform with the usually claimed racial groups and blood groups can be found around the globe with varied patterns with exception of south america (not usually a "race" geography). So let's be real what the data says.
@CeltoSaxonKnight "Why would anyone call a family a race?" You misunderstood my challenge. What I am pointing to is that these differences exist as close as within a single family. Yet we try to link these up in large ensembles where like in families some have it and some don't. But the phenomenon actually can occur on as small a unit as you and your siblings or parents. The point is that we don't divide out members of families long those line, but we do that with "races".
Clearly I'm not following you because I don't understand the connection you're trying to make... Few diseases I would think mainly occur on such a small scale as one family, in the way they seem to in regard to one race. So the 2 groups seem like different cases to me.
As far as I am aware it would be more correct to say there are 'some' families (plural) more at risk to certain diseases...
""this doesn't make white families with it a 'race'."
I agree. What is the point?"
How does disease susceptibility among any given group, large or small (family or continental), do anything but hint at a genetic relationship that we already knew or assumed was there?
Are you suggesting race deniers deny population genetics? At least we don't abuse it. Or can ambidextrous midgets with cystic fibrosis & green eyes be a race? If not why not?
I didn't know we were discussing the species problem. But that raises a good point. With so many potential species definitions you want to haggle over the sub species level? Not only that but Homo sapiens sapiens IS considered a sub species so you want to define something even smaller than that. All the while we have the species problem. But to answer the question....
@TheNarcMan Homo Geogicus was in eastern Europe almost 2 million years ago and the possible missing link between African Habilis and Ergaster. I'm not aware that any Antecessor bones have ever been found Africa, and so he could have evolved from Georgicus and in turn spawned both Heidelberg Man and Neanderthal Man. So there's every reason to suppose that a hominin lineage was already long established in Europe (over a million years) before it gave rise to neanderthals in Europe.
@TheNarcMan No - 'Georgicus'. And yes - it was a european variant of erectus - so what? The fact remains that erectus was in Europe nearly 2 million years ago. Neanderthals were first around in Europe just 0.5 million years ago and specially adapted for Europe's climate. So I certainly would not regard neanderthals as being your quintessential 'African' type of hominin - certainly not on the strength of an ancestor having left Africa some 1.5 - 2 million years previous.
Okay you supplied the g I supplied the r, we're all spelling georgicus properly now (although it shouldn't be capitalised if I nit-pick).
Okay the rest of what you said makes sense. So we agree. Africas pressure makes certain types of people. Europe makes certain types of people. Neadnerthalensis' forebears would have been dark skinned, broad featured OOA hominins. Even Dmanisi skulls are modelled with clay to look kinda E.African to me. But eventually white skin emerged. Halleluja!
My only question; was this ever in doubt? Race realists seem to pose the most mundane challenges for us to meet. Here's one maybe you can help me with.
We've agreed different locales consistently shape certain types of people through evolution. If European/Asian conditions makes for smarter people (Rusthon) then how come the first successful OOA people still alive today are Aboriginal Australians. How come all of the European/Asian hominins failed until modern Africans?
Either the environment of Eurasia changed so modern Africans found it easier than all those hominins before them to adapt to & so became Europeans/Asians or something changed within the stock of Homo sapiens so our species covered the world when prior people couldn't even conquer Eurasia. Modern man's spread to all places & thriving there no matter the conditions indicates to me a single successful malleable sub species far greater than our failed Eurasian cousins.
@TheNarcMan It all depends what story of human evolution you subscribe to. Like I've said - OOA is both persuasive and shot through with holes (like the multi regional theory). As for us all being the descendents of 'blacks'.... bear in mind that chimps vary widely in skin colour from grayish pink that is almost white through to black, with several yellowish shades between. So there's nothing unusual (or 'recent') about light coloured skin in the story of human evolution.
"OOA is both persuasive and shot through with holes"
...hmmm
"As for us all being the descendents of 'blacks'"
You can't stand that can you.
"So there's nothing unusual (or 'recent') about light coloured skin in the story of human evolution"
Aren't you the one who was talking about how the modern racial appearance only developed in the last 15-10,000 yrs? Even I said it was likely a lot longer than that. Europeans left black but likely lightened within a few thousand years.
I didn't know we were discussing random groups like “ambidextrous midgets with cystic fibrosis & green eyes” or other groups like families. You keep trying to claim races can be conflated with families or ad hoc groups of diseased midgets. The difference is these groups aren't taxa.
"You keep trying to claim races can be conflated with families or ad hoc groups of diseased midgets. The difference is these groups arent taxa"
Exactly. Neither are red headed, left handed lesbians. But I am still supplying as much detail, if not more, in my example of a Goobley as you are when you talk about your races of "white, black, asian, hispanic" etc.
I guess Im a Goobley realist. Youre all just weak egalitarians afraid to admit Vavavooms write left handed & lick pussy
Then follow your own reasoning from case to principle. Something is something if the concept & definition we design refers to an actual entity in the world. Thus it can be said races have the kind of genomes we expect races to have – which is persistent divergence ones brought about through geo-isolation & exposure to different kinds of environments.
Your acceptance of species is consistent with an acceptance of race; your denial of race is consistent with a denial of species.
""this doesn't make white families with it a 'race'."
I agree. What is the point?"
How does disease susceptibility among any given group, large or small (family or continental), do anything but hint at a genetic relationship that we already knew or assumed was there?
Are you suggesting race deniers deny population genetics? At least we don't abuse it. Or can ambidextrous midgets with cystic fibrosis & green eyes be a race? If not why not?
@socrates856 Race is defined as: "A population of interbreeding species that develops distinct characteristics differing from other populations of the same species, especially as caused by geographical isolation." The deniers can't refute the existence or evolutionary origins of race, so they throw out red herrings about gene maps, intermediate varieties/imprecisions, concerns over prejudices, etc., which don't address the biological definition of race.
@LibertarianRealist I can cluster pure dog breeds fine. But if I cluster humans I do not find these "distinct characteristics" that you seem to point to. Skin color tone by and large change smoothly geographically, so do other direct adaptive qualities, such as the correlation between malaria regions and sickle cell anemia. What you evidently deny is those facts. And yes that has to do with the "biological" definition of "race" that you fail to demonstrate.
@socrates856 Black skin color is a distinctive racial trait, since only certain subgroups of humans exhibit it. That observation would still be valid if there were 6 billion mulattoes of varying shades and only a handful of pure blacks and pure whites left in the world. Race would still be a meaningful category as long as distinct heritable traits exist in some populations.
@LibertarianRealist At what skin tone is someone "black"? You realize that skin tone changes gradually with geography, right? And that environmental factor prediction maps very closely relate to the actual skin color maps. I.e. direct sun-light exposure, and geographically closeness to the equator is a predictor. Are south indian people part of the "black" race? I.e. I don't talk "mulattoes" when I point this out at all.
@socrates856 You affirm race by even mentioning "south indian people." You know that they can be differentiated from black African people (by hair, soft tissue traits, skull shape, DNA analysis, etc.) even if they both have dark skin. You're merely engaging in semantics over labels, not refuting the existence of human populations with distinct SETS of heritable characteristics.
@LibertarianRealist No, I affirm that there is a geography called "india" and that we understand things like "north" and "south". And no, I'm not engaging in semantic games. I'm asking a real questions. But yes you are dodging them. I have challenged your notion of "distinct". It's up to you to provide that measure of distinction. You are failing to provide it.
As people making such a controversial positive claim of such vital importance race realists could probably be posed at least 50 questions that their philosophy/hypothesis would have to be able to answer to or die out. Even the least & most pathetic of these seem unanswerable.
1. What is your definition of significantly biologically different human groups (in intelligence/behaviour/temperament etc).
2. Give some examples consistent with your definition of this racial taxon.
@socrates856 Whilst I'm not entirely sure what you are hammering away at, I can assure you that distinct racial divides exist. Taxonomy is not quite an exacting science - any taxonomist would tell you that. But differences exist between different populations that are substantial enough to amount to a significant sub-species divide. Whether or not you choose to refer to those divides as race divides is matter of personal preference.
"You affirm race by even mentioning "south indian people.""
Yeah the other day I was telling my girlfriend a funny story about something my Dad did once in the kitchen. He is a member of that proud race the kitchen people. My talking about it affirms it.
Once again Librealist reduces himself to the racial equivalent of "If God doesn't exist why are you talking about him?" as though race deniers don't believe in some magical people of old legend from the south of India. Psshht
@LibertarianRealist It's hopeless, no matter how many of socrates856 points and questions you respond to. It will never be enough, you'll always be supposedly "dodging" questions.
This video might interest you: The Dumbfuckery of socrates856 /watch?v=t44KLKBkd2k
@socrates856 Check the 2008 paper 'European genes mirror european geography'. The fact that distinct differences within major races can be identified to pinpoint people to a small geographical locations and groups shows that viable taxa exist within the species. And take neoteny - that varies significantly between different races. Whilst variation will always exist within races, that doesn't nullify the fact that significant average differences between races can also be identified.
@SmippeHyrst See, this is the problem precisely. You find a paper that vaguely seems to fit your thought process, and you interpret it in a certain way and then exptrapolate it to something it doesn't actually say. Now what DOES that paper actually say? Will you tell us or will you just use it for propaganda? I guess your conception of "race" must live a few hundred kilometers apart inside Europe. (cont)
@SmippeHyrst See I have asked someone earlier what constitutes "race" because they made a point similar to yours here. Sure we can see genetic variation. But we see that already between siblings. I fully expect that then we have dense genome data that we will be able to see very fine differences with fine geographies. So does that mean that populations from Cedar Rapids and Boise in Idaho constitute different races? Why not?
@SmippeHyrst And take your paper, why does this NOT mean that north-germans and south-germans are different "races"? That is precisely what I have been asking and people are failing to provide. People point at difference and give vague principles, but they apply in ways that don't fit what they clearly want to be the case. You and close family members can be genetically differentiated. Does that mean your family has multiple races?
@socrates856 There is height variation within all races. There are also significant average height differences between races, like the difference between the Chinese and the Dutch. But by your reasoning, such an average difference cannot qualify as one of a number of traits contributing towards a general sub-species divide. You presumably would argue that so long as such traits are variable within all groups, average differences between groups (however substantial) never apply in taxonomy.
@SmippeHyrst No, you don't understand what I critique. Differences between people are given. What you don't give me is what "race" is. Sure you can call any circle you draw on a map a "race" but that doesn't make that a biological concept. That make you attribute the patterns you find underneath that circle you drew to that circle. To then claim that "races" are real just means that you want us to have some sort of respect for your circles even though they are arbitrary.
@socrates856 Like I've said - animals and plants do not come with labels providing clear lines of distinction - and that often includes species divide. You have to take account of both morphological and genetic differences to draw dividing lines. Whilst I'm not a scientist, I do read that such dividing lines exist significant enough to amount to a sub-species divide, something you seem to reject out of hand.
@SmippeHyrst Sure and we can describe animals and plants by clinal models. Oddly enough we don't have "clinists" running around demanding that we use that model. I wonder why...
@socrates856 "why does this NOT mean that north-germans and south-germans are different "races"?" They could be, but it would not helpful to the classification of different human groups to ascribe the same ethnic divide between (for instance) scandanavians and the Irish as between mongoloids and negroids. A sub-racial divide would be more appropriate, like the difference between the congoid and bushmen negroid groups .
@SmippeHyrst Sure and by the same argument you and your parents and siblings could be different races too. So if it's arbitrary and depending on what fits your argument why should we accept it as biological. Yes there are differences in complex ways. Let describe them from the difference and not from some imposed vague notion that can be applied to any difference in any way it seems. Welcome to the New York City "race", because we can find a difference to Boston.
@CeltoSaxonKnight I give you two people and you have to sort them into the matching groups. You give me the criterion and I can perform the sorting without further discussion. That would be sensibly strict definition.
I don't think biology allows for that... Nature being too varied. But let's see - say I give you 2 organisms and you have to sort them into species. Can you give me the criterion for species by which I can perform the sorting without further discussion?
Clue: there's about 7 different accepted definitions of species.
@CeltoSaxonKnight Sure. Speciation is a pretty solid functional mechanism by which we can delineate species. One can bicker around the edges, but even the exceptions are fairly easy to classify themselves. So give me that rule and I can indeed put specimen quite neatly into boxes and I have a structured way to talk about exceptions without waving hands. So yes I'd be happy to classify without further discussion that way.
@CeltoSaxonKnight Speciation means that two animals which used to be an interbreeding subspecies can no longer interbreed. That is a functional definition. You can test for interbreeding and that test gives you a solid delineator. It's solid because there are very large groups of animals that are very cleanly sorted into different distinct groups by it and exceptions are very rare and tend to be in the transition of subspecies to species, hence too tend to be easily explained.
"Speciation means that two animals which used to be an interbreeding subspecies can no longer interbreed."
No. Firstly that definition has no meaning for asexually reproducing organisms.
Secondly is it even consistent in sexually reproducing animals – various species of bugs are inter-fertile. In mammals different species of canis also produce fertile offspring.
@CeltoSaxonKnight Well we have a word for tiger-lion hybrids and we can even describe how speciation fails in that case. But yes I am amused that you try to twist me arm accepting a failed taxonomy while attacking a sensibly working one. The rhetoric trick is blatant. You want to indicate that species taxonomy is "as fuzzy as". But that's untrue. It's blatantly false. So why do you pursue this line of argument?
@socrates856 "Speciation means that two animals which used to be an interbreeding subspecies can no longer interbreed." Not necessarily - by that standard neanderthals would be classed as homo sapiens. Lions and tigers are a different species but can inter-breed. Genus is the key divide (I think) where no inter-breeding can occur.
"if you want to claim that skin color is skin deep"
That isn't my claim... I'm saying what you find in geographic populations are correlations in the likelihood of possessing certain traits. As expected by evolution...
What you seem to be claiming is akin to saying right-handedness doesn't correlate to race therefore race cannot exist. Well the traits of having 2 eyes, teeth, or 4 limbs, don't correspond to species - does that refute species-realism too? If not why not?
I don't see a philosophical or scientific argument against race in your comments. You seem to just assert an opinion that whilst there is population difference you personally don't think it's 'significant'. Yet I descry no methodology for why; or what this means...
Certain traits not being consistent with race is congruent with selection pressures, ontogenetics & random mutation not being consistent. Race however is congruent with trait frequency as expected by evolutionary theory.
"I don't see a philosophical or scientific argument against race in your comments"
Even if your vision isn't 20/20 give your eyes a chance as your anus is clearly 0/0.
"assert an opinion that whilst there is population difference you personally don't think it's 'significant'. Yet I descry no methodology for why; or what this means..."
I was going to do a whole video series on taxonomy starting with Aristotelian essentialism through to why "race" is invalid. Then I went 'meh'.
"Certain traits not being consistent with race is congruent with selection pressures, ontogenetics & random mutation not being consistent. Race however is congruent with trait frequency as expected by evolutionary theory"
It's a lot funnier when youse just flake & talk about dog breeds & shit.
All this wishful thinking but if I ask you for a trait indicative of race you'll most likely just whip out your cum soaked copy of the bell curve & hurt my brain meat.
OK. Could you then using your framework offer a description/definition of a human subspecies? What properties would they have? What would clearly demarcate boundaries between multiple possible subspecies? How would you expect traits to vary & why? How would you know that they were a 'subspecies' as opposed to what we call 'races' today?
@CeltoSaxonKnight There are plenty of structure theories for genome and gene expression. How about clines? Just open an actual textbook on human genetics and you'll find lots of ways to talk about genetic variations among humans. Just turns out that we don't get good clusters when we try.
“Just turns out that we don't get good clusters when we try”
I think that's wrong. Given evolution, the variability of nature prohibits any notion of highly resolved objects in gene space. You should expect overlapping & clines in certain but not all directions.
But anyway we're back to value judgements like 'good'. What is a good cluster & why?
@CeltoSaxonKnight What you "think" doesn't really matter. What matters is what you know the studies show. And we can fantasize all day what we should expect. If we don't want to just fantasize we should at least state what we do see.
Actually in science we have rather solid measures for what makes a good clustering and what doesn't. To start into that field pick up a basic textbook on pattern classification (e.g. Duda and Hart).
OK if you've read this book of answers then I have a poser for you. There are 5 populations that linearly cluster A, B, C, D, E. They overlap without clear separation in such a way that A can interbreed with B, B with C, C with D, D with E. However E & A can no longer interbreed & are as physically & genetically distinct as most species today - yet neither is a resolved cluster in gene-space. What is their taxonomic relationship & why?
@CeltoSaxonKnight You see how you already suppose you have those clusters. But that is already the problem. We don't get clear clusters, so the question of overlap isn't yet there. We can discuss the overlap when we have sensible clustering. But we don't. The reason why I say this is that genome clustering turns out to be highly sensitive to clustering methods and parameter chosen. Imaging if all clustering methods gave the same simple answer, say 5 populations. (cont)
@CeltoSaxonKnight Further we do know that we can get separating clusters even within species. Pure Dog breeds cluster fine. Yet dog genes are still closer than typically speciated cases, so if you can give me an actual example of the case you hypothesize perhaps we can clarify.
@CeltoSaxonKnight I don't know about you, but I like to discuss reality. And philosophy is only of interest if it helps us with reality. If you want to present me with a hypothetical that actually reflects what we have, I'd be happy to discuss it. And you forget what I insist on. I don't insist on distinct clusters those those guarantee that there is no controvery. I insist on actual clusters, which is a far easier bar to meet. (cont)
@CeltoSaxonKnight (cont) and I agree fully that dog breeds are not a good example, but guess what. That's the kind of comparisons that racists make on youtube. Just watch FE's video. He insinuates that the dog breed situation really is like the situations for humans. But yes, it's not an apt comparison by any stretch. I'd not to contend with it at all.
@CeltoSaxonKnight Here is a philosophical question for you: What do we do if no natural clusters spring from the data? And those clusters that we can construct (such as by blood group alleles) don't match "racial" boundaries. Is it not the sound position to seek models that better explain the data, such as clines etc?
The question does help with reality. It asks why clean & distinct objects are necessary. The clusters we have allow for racial identification > 99.9%.
Blood groups alleles are restricted sets. Find the stuff responsible for having 2 legs & a nose - that'll overlap: does this disprove geographical group differences over other traits?
@CeltoSaxonKnight You pull a number out of your behind that is not matching what the summary of gene clustering literature gives us. You have the splaining to do why you spread falsehoods.
@CeltoSaxonKnight And blood group alleles actually WORK for a taxonomy. That is the point of that example. It is not hard to taxonomize humans if you use the right kinds of criteria.
“It is not hard to taxonomize humans if you use the right kinds of criteria.”
Then I fail to see how or why you can object to race. Races differ from any other group/population construct because they refer to persistently divergent populations resulting from geographical isolation & exposure to different kinds of environments.
Races aren't 'just' populations, they are populations with distinct, measurable properties that are consistent with evolution. (cont'd)
Isolation causes genetic separation leading to speciation. New species don't just pop up from nowhere, they emerge from extant populations through recognisable mechanisms like geo-isolation. I mean do you really expect 40,000 years of isolation + exposure to different environments b/w 2 groups to have no more taxonomic significance than 2 groups not isolated & living in the same environment?
@CeltoSaxonKnight Sorry telling. Yes all sorts of factors impact genetic variation. And we understand quite a bit of this. But we don't get "distinct" groups along the 19th century racial blocks. We don't get "black" and "white". The problem is that you cannot actually talk about the actual data. You talk about your racial shit before you look at it. Noone disputes variation. What is disputed is your false pre-hoc grouping. And if you actually started to look at data...
@CeltoSaxonKnight Why do I object to "race" when I don't object to taxonomy by blood group? One is actually and obviosly biological, the other doesn't spring from the data. We can talk about genetic data and we actually have much better ways to structure the data than "race", for example clines. Why do you not use good models rather than a failing one? You still cannot give me what a "race" is btw. And what your "distinct" criterion is. Blood group it's clear.
"Dog breeds are artificially isolated, so the comparison isn't apt."
You people try to use dog breeds all the time to make arguments from shallow external appearances. Now that genetics argues against you dog breeds are out? As I said, you're all like Joseph Smith reading your special gold plates out of a magic hat. We're not allowed to look at them & if you lose them you just move the goal posts & start over again making shit up as you go.
@TheNarcMan What is the evidence Neanderthal man evolved in Africa? There were preceding homin species in Europe long before neanderthals came on to the scene, and the best contender for the spawning of neanderthals homo antecessor - a european branch of homo. And even if we accept the OOA theory, does any evidence suggest those initial Africans were of negroid ethnic appearance. I thought negroid ethnic traits did not begin to appear until 30,000 years ago at the very earliest.
"What is the evidence Neanderthal man evolved in Africa?"
Mitochondrial DNA evidence.
"There were preceding homin species in Europe long before neanderthals came on to the scene, and the best contender for the spawning of neanderthals homo antecessor - a european branch of homo"
"any evidence suggest those initial Africans were of negroid ethnic appearance"
If by negroid you mean the majority Bantu population of Africa today than no as even today there are still surviving minority groups who look physically different. Yet even you would look at them & think "Africans" apart from the far north where people have entered from the Middle East over the last few thousand years. Would one environment evolve many different homo facial structures/skin tones?
@TheNarcMan The OOA (which I'm not wholly convinced by) contends that homo sapiens left Africa some 80,000 years ago. That is a massive amount of time where racial evolution is concerned, many argue that today's racial groupings are a mere 10-15000 years old. So the Africans that left Africa all that time ago and subsequently spawned today's non-African races would (in all likelihood) have looked a whole lot different to today's African races.
"The OOA (which I'm not wholly convinced by) contends that homo sapiens left Africa some 80,000 years ago"
Wasn't this a failed exodus? The first successful leaving of Africa was 60,000 yrs ago by Australian Aboriginals, the most distantly related people to modern Africans.
"Africans ... would (in all likelihood) have looked a whole lot different to today's African races"
But for them to be anything but dark skinned & broad featured in that part of the world wouldn't make sense.
Or would all the homos to come out of Africa over the last several million years had other qualities in common besides some features of an evolving skeletal structure? If you look at the global co ordinates of Saharan & north Africa then no matter the climate (hot & dry or even during ice ages) this is a part of the earth that has always favoured melanin & broad sloping faces. Only a race creationist would suggest that nature made an exception so white people could emerge OOA
@TheNarcMan Neanderthals were specially adapted to a cold climate - barrel chests and short, stubby hands, fingers, and feet were adaptations for the cold and they endured ice ages. So white skin seems likely. I think you said that the original neanderthals evolved in hotter Africa with dark skin !
"I think you said that the original neanderthals evolved in hotter Africa with dark skin!"
You asked what evidence there was neanderthalensis evolved in Africa. I read it as 'came from'. I was still clear anyway. (I think this is right...) Homo ergaster --> Homo antecessor in Africa, antecessor moved to Europe via Middle East ---> Homo heidelbergensis ---> Homo neanderthalensis. With all the evidence of this not sure why you doubt OOA. Oh, coz you don't want to be related to blacks.
@TheNarcMan "With all the evidence of this not sure why you doubt OOA. Oh, coz you don't want to be related to blacks." BTW - your time line for the homo variants is not really a case for OOA as such, which leads me to wonder if you actually know what OOA is.
Semitic languages trace back to Africa, East specifically. All the East & North was once "negroid" (leaving statues & cave paintings of black people) until desertification of the Sahara. This is what emptied N.Africa. Ancestors of negroes & ethiopians went south & east while ancestors of Semites/Arabs went north before returning to become Egyptians & other dark brown N.Africans. The archaeology, languages & genetics all says this. What have you read that suggests otherwise?
You don't get to call me on "afro centrism". Not when I rail against it myself (black people claiming ancient Greeks, Egyptians & south Americans "negro") & especially when you're so biased with a fuckhead's username & the habit of calling people nigger swine.
I notice you didn't answer my question. I'll ask again (in vain no doubt).
Imagine Western Europe & the British Isles were moved to the Indian Ocean. Blacks still left Africa but ended up there instead of Europe. They never evolved to look European but remained in the climate zone to remain "African" in appearance. But like the Europeans who left Africa they left any sickle cell anaemia prevalence behind. So now they're a different race because of disease infrequency even though they may be the same as Africans in almost every other way? Riiiiiight.
@TheNarcMan The sub-Saharan black race of which you speak didn't migrate out of Africa and evolve into whites. Whites evolved from the original humans who inhabited parts of Africa whose native populations aren't black, with a small contribution from neanderthals. Variation in disease susceptibility isn't sufficient to identify racial populations. The study of disease susceptibility in blacks presupposes that black populations have been identified via other indicators.
"The sub-Saharan black race of which you speak didn't migrate out of Africa and evolve into whites"
I didn't think I'd have to argue the finer points of OOA theory with you. Fuck me.
"Whites evolved from the original humans who inhabited parts of Africa whose native populations aren't black, with a small contribution from neanderthals"
The neandertals were black once too. Sorry, Africa doesn't spawn light coloured skin. They evolve outside Africa then return.
@TheNarcMan Neandertals are never depicted in museums and textbooks as having black skin. Depictions must be raysist. Look, OOA doesn't mean we all came from blacks. "African" is often used to refer to blacks, but you'll find very few blacks in North Africa. The original Africans were not sub-Saharan negroids.
"Neandertals are never depicted in museums and textbooks as having black skin"
Neither is Gerard Depardieu (not even when he played a part negro Alexandre Dumas nyuk nyuk nyuk).
I said, and I quote;
"The neandertals were black once too." The key word being WERE. Feel free to re-read the post if you don't believe me. I gotta say I respect you for upholding your libertarian values by not being a Bessy Blockalot but are you straw manning on purpose or should I just feel pity?
""African" is often used to refer to blacks, but you'll find very few blacks in North Africa."
Again, Africa didn't historically spawn light skin. Even Africa's non-Bantu minorities are completely alien tones of grey or yellow to Europeans. North Africans are relatively recent arrivals over the last few millenia just like South Asians were black like Aboriginals until Indo Chinese expansion & S.Africa was pygmy & san until Bantu expansion.
"Variation in disease susceptibility isn't sufficient to identify racial populations"
Something we agree on.
"The study of disease susceptibility in blacks presupposes that black populations have been identified via other indicators"
And as I said, the basis for who is "black" (besides skin colour of course) is so tenuous or downright lacking that disease susceptibility may even be a better taxonomic attribute than anything else you've got. Which is nothing.
Using race is the wrong indicator of susceptibility and there shouldn't be one if race is the only other option. There isn't enough biological grounds or consistency for the concept to be credible in something as vital as medicine.
Doctors & other highly educated people tend to avoid circular reasoning when a life is on the line.
"What's the situation doc?"
"We need the defib! Poor motherfucker's going into heart failure coz he's black! & I know he's definitely black coza the heart failure!"
This has been flagged as spam show
EVERYONE WHO HAS A FACEBOOK PLEASE LOGIN TO RT AMERICA (RT TV) WHERE THE RACE DENIERS ARE CLAIMING THAT RACIALLY AWARE WHITES ARE INNATELY MENTALLY DEFICIENT, CITING "SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE" FROM A HUFFINGTON POST ARTICLE PERTAINING TO CHILDHOOD "IQ STATISTICS" WHICH PREDICT QUOTE-UNQUOTE "RACISM" IN LATER LIFE AND REFUTE THEM!
Quote: "Next time you call group of right-wing racists a bunch of idiots, you can back yourself up with one simple word: Science!"
facebook. com /RTAmerica
EuropeanWatchman 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
good vid
buckodcelt 3 weeks ago
I'm gonna finish up for now asking what I always ask for & which no race realist has ever been able to supply even though the bare minimum of your world view should be able to handle it.
You're identifying something you call race & even examples of it. Define what you're talking about when you say "race" and "negroid" otherwise you're not identifying anything.
Or I don't have to define "Goobleys" nor define exactly why red haired, left handed lesbians are members of the Goobley I call Vavavoom.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan
All of your objections to definitions of race apply to species also. Consistent with your denial of race is a denial of species.
Sub-species/races refer to distinguishable & classifiable objects in the world that correlate with genetic structures in the human genome.
Social constructs like occupations cannot be identified from biology. Races can.
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight
"All of your objections to definitions of race apply to species also"
What definitions? You haven't given any.
"Social constructs like occupations cannot be identified from biology. Races can"
What is 'race'? Without defining it it could mean anything. I can say;
"Social constructs like occupations cannot be identified from biology. Goobleys can"
because my groups I call Goobleys also have identifiable genes which give them red hair & maybe even left handedness & lesbianism.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan
“Race : A phenotypically and/or geographically distinctive subspecific group, composed of individuals inhabiting a defined geographical and/or ecological region, and possessing characteristic phenotypic and gene frequencies that distinguish it from other such groups.” King and Stansfield dictionary of genetics 1990.
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CeltoSaxonKnight
"“Race : A phenotypically and/or geographically distinctive subspecific group, composed of individuals inhabiting a defined geographical and/or ecological region, and possessing characteristic phenotypic and gene frequencies that distinguish it from other such groups.” King and Stansfield dictionary of genetics 1990."
I would accept that as you probably won't find anything better but try again, something from after 2003 if you know what I mean. 1990 XD lolz.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan
Date has nothing to do with it, the definition is still valid.
"A population of interbreeding species that develops distinct characteristics differing from other populations of the same species, especially as caused by geographical isolation." Biology online (current).
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan
I'll personally add: a race is a population, but a population isn't a race. Your attempted deconstruct is wholly built upon a category mistake. Races differ from any other group/population construct because they are persistently divergent populations resulting from geographical isolation & exposure to different kinds of environments.
I will only reply to actual arguments from now on...
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight
My Goobleys are at least as well defined as your races. I'm a Goobley realist, you're just a brainwashed liberal afraid of the truth.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
The best video you've made so far
AstriaICOW 3 weeks ago 2
Well I know there are human groups that exist which I call Goobleys. I have no interest in defining what delineates the Goobleys other than to give the example of left handed lesbians with red hair as being one of the Goobleys. This particular Goobley is called Vavavoom. Now you can sit here & argue all day against the existence of Goobleys even though we know that Vavavoom's exist. We can study the Goobleys & find all sorts of interesting differences such as hand use, melanoma risk & sex habits
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight
But more importantly what does "black" mean? Or "African"? What exact attributes go into this biological taxonomic classification? List them all in a video. If the attributes of your "Homo sapiens sapiens negroid" don't come up to scratch with scientific consistency when compared to other sub species such as the African Elephant dichotomy based on genetics (Loxodonta africana/Loxodonta cyclotis) or any other such example in biology this is all wishful thinking. Define Negroid.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan
I'm personally not in the least bit interested in defining Negroid. Under evolution all traits are fragile. What I'm interested in is whether certain clusters of genes are diverging from other clusters over time.
To me races are divergent processes: individuals emerging from individuals.
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan
"don't come up to scratch"
What does that mean objectively? What type of entity would 'come up to scratch' to be accepted as a human subspecies & why?
NB: So far I'm seeing little objective method or criteria for acceptance or rejection of human subspecies. All rejections so far are ad hoc & bear more in common with literary criticism then they do with objective science.
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight
"What type of entity would 'come up to scratch' to be accepted as a human subspecies & why?"
In his book on organisational systematics Bill McKelvey concedes that when looking for a model for systematics to be used in organising anything & everything the biologists were far ahead of anyone else & concludes that their methods of phylogenetic taxonomy set the most impressive benchmarks for identifying & classifying groups (not just living things) objectively.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight
There is no onus on me (I'm not a biologist or a systematist) to explain the finer details of biology's taxonomic method & why human "races" aren't included. Maybe you can ask someone who does this for a living like the YouTuber sofiarune.
But of course she's probably just a cultural marxist, leftist, egalitarian anti-white. Coz science is hard. Derpa derp.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan
Fair enough I admire honesty.
I actually tried talking to sophiarune but she stopped replying to me after someone told her not to talk to me because I was a 'basically a Nazi or something', uh what? The same person also wandered onto my channel & accused me of wanting to send immigrants to death camps for absolutely no reason. This is the everyday craziness race-realists have to face.
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CeltoSaxonKnight
"All rejections so far are ad hoc & bear more in common with literary criticism then they do with objective science"
Meanwhile I haven't seen a single argument FOR the existence of subcategories apart from "they must exist coz we're talking about them right now in terms of disease". LibRealist has pulled this creationist stunt before saying "Skepticalheretic uses studies that mention race to say race doesn't exist" just like "If you don't believe in God why do you hate him?"
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan “I haven't seen a single argument FOR the existence of...”
Human genetic variation, as shown in persistent genetic clustering corresponding to geographical origin, which correlates with race >99%. But deeper than that our inductive sensibilities, our innate faculties to recognise meaningful difference. Our ability to construct categories which though not of the world, can reference & point to actual things in the world in ways that are informative, measurable & predictive.
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CeltoSaxonKnight
"Human genetic variation, as shown in persistent genetic clustering corresponding to geographical origin, which correlates with race >99%"
Four self identified "races"? Asian, Black, White & Hispanic? Those are the world's only races? And since when were different types of eagle or mollusc or honey bees asked to identify themselves to see if genetics matched their self identification? Self ID'd race is the epitome of a social construct & a folk taxonomy, not scientific.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight
Not to mention the fact that it's too vague so that even people like fringeelements have described categories like Asian as useless. Black? That's trite considering most variation is amongst Africans. What's Hispanic? A 'race' derived from admixture that could be anything from 95% black/5% Latin to 5% Latin/95% black? How very scientific.
The self ID stuff is probably the strongest thing you've got but even that is clearly folk taxonomy based on vague, useless social concepts
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight
And even the story your DNA tells shouldn't really give racists the little hard on that it does. The results speak only of the geographical origins of your ancestors. To say this proves race exists is akin to saying "See? Humans have genes & DNA! Races exist!"
This was never in doubt amongst the sound of mind. What does this DNA say about biologically significant differences, especially regarding controversial concepts like IQ & behaviour? Oh. Nothing. Race is skin deep.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan
Try not to flood me with questions & info – it gives me the impression you want to wear me out rather than reply!
Self-identification assumes race to be social that is why it is used. What kind of identification would you like?
“biologically significant differences”
What do you mean? To me all differences are significant, because they are informative.
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CeltoSaxonKnight
"Try not to flood me with questions & info – it gives me the impression you want to wear me out rather than reply!"
Sorry, I should do videos instead of troll comment sections. I might later this year once uni gets under way. Its just how I post comments coz heaps of shit just comes to mind at once.
"Self-ID assumes race to be social that is why it is used"
So it should. Race is social.
"What kind of identification would you like?"
You need to read up on taxonomy methinks
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan
Yes race is social. Which is why it can be predicted from biology just like every other social construct, like occupation, or a sense of justice, or whether one is a sitzpinkler or not... ;0)
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CeltoSaxonKnight
"Yes race is social. Which is why it can be predicted from biology just like every other social construct, like occupation, or a sense of justice, or whether one is a sitzpinkler or not... ;0)"
...I'm going to take this as a comment.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan
"Yes race is social. Which is why it can be predicted from biology just like every other social construct..."
Sorry I couldn't leave this alone.
Like religion? Can biology prove that God exists? Objective morality? Can biology prove there are universal laws written on the hearts of men? Gender roles? Can you prove women should get back in the kitchen? Is that why they have smaller feet, to get closer to the sink?
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight
To claim that races must exist because we're sitting here talking about disease susceptibility amongst one of them (heart disease among African descendants) supposes that any disease or affliction spread out evenly among all populations makes us all a race & since we know we are collectively known as homo sapiens sapiens any such disease which affects all us with the same frequency & having the same affect on us proves our oneness as a group. Same reasoning different outcome.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan
That's not the claim.
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CeltoSaxonKnight
"That's not the claim"
Yes it is.
"I'm personally not in the least bit interested in defining Negroid"
Because you can't. Nor any other "race".
"What I'm interested in is whether certain clusters of genes are diverging from other clusters over time"
Like they have amongst the nations states of Europe over the last 500 years thanks to tensions & hostilities amongst the Empires? So "French" is a race & clusters have also diverged in regions so French also has racial sub groups.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan
Well I can give you a definition of Negroid if you really want... But what would it prove? Biological structures are impermanent. Furthermore until I know what goalposts you think relevant it's a foregone conclusion that whatever I say will be dismissed.
You missed the very important bit “over time”. Recombination is a fact with populations that aren't isolated. Geographical clusters are exhibits of persistent isolation.
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CeltoSaxonKnight
"Well I can give you a definition of Negroid if you really want... But what would it prove?"
That you people aren't just pulling this all out of your rectum making it up as you go at your own convenience.
"Biological structures are impermanent"
Yeah real fucking impermanent when you're talking about "race".
"until I know what goalposts you think relevant its a foregone conclusion whatever I say will be dismissed"
Yeah but by biological taxonomy not me. Learn about how it works
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan
Biological taxonomy is not one thing set in stone, agree upon by all. That you present it as such is either because you lack the requisite knowledge or you are disingenuous.
Anyway my offer remains. Tell me your standard for subspecies acceptance & I will give you a purposeless definition of 'Negroid'. OR perhaps we can forget about that & try to engage in a productive discussion instead? Just a thought.
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CeltoSaxonKnight
"Biological taxonomy is not one thing set in stone, agree upon by all"
For me personally race isn't reason enough to go against the consensus. The cost of the ridiculous results would far outweigh benefits to science.
"Anyway my offer remains. Tell me your standard for subspecies acceptance.."
When was this offered?
"& I will give you a purposeless definition of 'Negroid'"
"Show me proof God doesn't exist & I'll show you why he does... I swear I won't just bail"
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight
"OR perhaps we can forget about that & try to engage in a productive discussion instead? Just a thought"
No I'm not interested in giving you the biggest let off imaginable. If you can't or won't define what you're identifying how can I argue against it? You're being Joseph Smith with your gold plates in a hat. You're being a creationist douche. You're willing to sit here & argue for race but can't/won't define it. You can't even give an example of one. This goes for all of you
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan
You asked for a definition of 'Negroid' not race.
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CeltoSaxonKnight
"Thats not what hes saying and he just explained that to you a few comments ago. He explicitly stated:
"Variation in disease susceptibility isnt sufficient to identify racial populations. The study of disease susceptibility in blacks presupposes that black populations have been identified via other indicators""
Right, which amounts to "We know races exist because we can look for disease susceptibility amongst them" as I said but "black" is a special classification not general
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@TehClockwork
Sorry, that comment was meant to be at CeltoSaxonKnight not you.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@socrates856
The claim in the video is that:
A) certain races are susceptible to certain medical conditions more than others.
Which does seem to be the case & is congruent with evolutionary expectations for subspecial variation. As are distributions of blood type, skin tone, etc... It may also be that some medical conditions vary with blood group, but there's no refutation of race implicit in the idea that some traits (or medical susceptibilities) vary by race & some don't.
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight A) You cannot define "race" strictly. But as a rough short-hand it works. Blood-groups are not uniformly distributed. You could say that someone from one town should donate and you would increase the contribution of the blood group distribution in that town. Given that it is different from another town, you can adjust your backstock. Doesn't mean that the town makes a "race". I can in fact pick random locations on the planet and get that effect.
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight Again sickle cell anemia is not linked to race. It just happens to be linked to high-malaria areas and hence has high co-occurance with what racists call subsaharan african "race". But look at the map for geography of sickle cell anemia and for what is called the african race and you understand that they are NOT the same. Same with blood groups. So yes it refutes this conflation of "race" with medical conditions.
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@socrates856
"refutes this conflation of "race" with medical conditions"
If what you say is true then it does refute a sub-case of A regarding sickle-cell. However proposition A still stands unless it can be proved that, despite appearances, absolutely no medical conditions vary with race (which goes against the consensus opinion as far as I am aware.)
So are you suggesting absolutely no medical conditions vary with race?
NB: refuting A does not refute race per se.
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight Er no. Medical conditions vary within close relatives such as siblings. Are you proposing that you and your siblings and parents are different races? If yes why not call it individual differences? If no, where do you draw the line? And why? And yes if what someone claims reifies race doesn't in fact does the opposite it does refute race. Because you just made it up and your evidence failed your hypothesis. That's what falsifiability is.
socrates856 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@socrates856
"Medical conditions vary within close relatives such as siblings. Are you proposing that you and your siblings and parents are different races?"
Nope. The word we use for your parents and sibling is "family". F-a-m-i-l-y. Races are larger scale breeding populations that share distinctive traits.
"If no, where do you draw the line?"
It's arbitrary. We've said that, but nice continuum fallacy.
TehClockwork 3 weeks ago
@socrates856
Yes but the hypothesis wasn't “race exists” but “certain medical conditions vary with race”. There is no refutation of race in refuting the latter.
No I'd be proposing some diseases vary with families, some with race. There's no need to draw a line. It's all information.
Why would anyone call a family a race? We have different concepts, name & definitions for family + race. A square shares some properties with a triangle – why would lead anyone call a triangle a square?
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight Yes certain medical conditions vary with circles you can draw on the map. That is correct. That does not make the race concept real or biological. But I am not naive. LibertarianRealist is a race realist. He is NOT making this argument to allow blood banks to get a practical shorthand to balance their blood group backstock. Ethnicity is a sensibly working method to do that. This is just a part of the apologetics why race is supposedly biological when it's not.
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight So yes if we actually want to talk about how blood groups, disease patterns etc work, we should talk about what really is the case. Malaria prevelance, not "race" predicts sickle cell anemia. Blood groups vary in a pattern that does not conform with the usually claimed racial groups and blood groups can be found around the globe with varied patterns with exception of south america (not usually a "race" geography). So let's be real what the data says.
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight "Why would anyone call a family a race?" You misunderstood my challenge. What I am pointing to is that these differences exist as close as within a single family. Yet we try to link these up in large ensembles where like in families some have it and some don't. But the phenomenon actually can occur on as small a unit as you and your siblings or parents. The point is that we don't divide out members of families long those line, but we do that with "races".
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@socrates856
Clearly I'm not following you because I don't understand the connection you're trying to make... Few diseases I would think mainly occur on such a small scale as one family, in the way they seem to in regard to one race. So the 2 groups seem like different cases to me.
As far as I am aware it would be more correct to say there are 'some' families (plural) more at risk to certain diseases...
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight
"Few diseases I would think mainly occur on such a small scale as one family, in the way they seem to in regard to one race"
Then think of race as an extended family if you want. Genetics relates people, yeah. Why are you people so shocked & enthused by this?
"it would be more correct to say there are 'some' families (plural) more at risk to certain diseases..."
Right, like a rare autosomal recessive condition for example. But this doesn't make white families with it a 'race'.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan
"Then think of race as an extended family if you want"
No, that's nothing like how I think of them.
"this doesn't make white families with it a 'race'."
I agree. What is the point?
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight
""this doesn't make white families with it a 'race'."
I agree. What is the point?"
How does disease susceptibility among any given group, large or small (family or continental), do anything but hint at a genetic relationship that we already knew or assumed was there?
Are you suggesting race deniers deny population genetics? At least we don't abuse it. Or can ambidextrous midgets with cystic fibrosis & green eyes be a race? If not why not?
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan
“Or can ambidextrous midgets with cystic fibrosis & green eyes be a race? If not why not?”
Can they be a species if not, why not?
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight
"Can they be a species if not, why not?"
I didn't know we were discussing the species problem. But that raises a good point. With so many potential species definitions you want to haggle over the sub species level? Not only that but Homo sapiens sapiens IS considered a sub species so you want to define something even smaller than that. All the while we have the species problem. But to answer the question....
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan Homo Geogicus was in eastern Europe almost 2 million years ago and the possible missing link between African Habilis and Ergaster. I'm not aware that any Antecessor bones have ever been found Africa, and so he could have evolved from Georgicus and in turn spawned both Heidelberg Man and Neanderthal Man. So there's every reason to suppose that a hominin lineage was already long established in Europe (over a million years) before it gave rise to neanderthals in Europe.
SmippeHyrst 3 weeks ago
@SmippeHyrst
"Homo Geogicus"
You mean georicus? I've always just taken the Dmanisi people to be a kind of Homo erectus. At least that's how they've always been described.
"the possible missing link between African Habilis and Ergaster"
Wrong. If anything the transitional form between habilis & erectus. Missing link? Are you Ken Hovind?
"So there's every reason to suppose that a hominin lineage was already long established in Europe (over a million years)"
Uh, there's proof too. Lol we knew that
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan No - 'Georgicus'. And yes - it was a european variant of erectus - so what? The fact remains that erectus was in Europe nearly 2 million years ago. Neanderthals were first around in Europe just 0.5 million years ago and specially adapted for Europe's climate. So I certainly would not regard neanderthals as being your quintessential 'African' type of hominin - certainly not on the strength of an ancestor having left Africa some 1.5 - 2 million years previous.
SmippeHyrst 3 weeks ago
@SmippeHyrst
Okay you supplied the g I supplied the r, we're all spelling georgicus properly now (although it shouldn't be capitalised if I nit-pick).
Okay the rest of what you said makes sense. So we agree. Africas pressure makes certain types of people. Europe makes certain types of people. Neadnerthalensis' forebears would have been dark skinned, broad featured OOA hominins. Even Dmanisi skulls are modelled with clay to look kinda E.African to me. But eventually white skin emerged. Halleluja!
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@SmippeHyrst
My only question; was this ever in doubt? Race realists seem to pose the most mundane challenges for us to meet. Here's one maybe you can help me with.
We've agreed different locales consistently shape certain types of people through evolution. If European/Asian conditions makes for smarter people (Rusthon) then how come the first successful OOA people still alive today are Aboriginal Australians. How come all of the European/Asian hominins failed until modern Africans?
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@SmippeHyrst
Either the environment of Eurasia changed so modern Africans found it easier than all those hominins before them to adapt to & so became Europeans/Asians or something changed within the stock of Homo sapiens so our species covered the world when prior people couldn't even conquer Eurasia. Modern man's spread to all places & thriving there no matter the conditions indicates to me a single successful malleable sub species far greater than our failed Eurasian cousins.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan It all depends what story of human evolution you subscribe to. Like I've said - OOA is both persuasive and shot through with holes (like the multi regional theory). As for us all being the descendents of 'blacks'.... bear in mind that chimps vary widely in skin colour from grayish pink that is almost white through to black, with several yellowish shades between. So there's nothing unusual (or 'recent') about light coloured skin in the story of human evolution.
SmippeHyrst 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SmippeHyrst
"OOA is both persuasive and shot through with holes"
...hmmm
"As for us all being the descendents of 'blacks'"
You can't stand that can you.
"So there's nothing unusual (or 'recent') about light coloured skin in the story of human evolution"
Aren't you the one who was talking about how the modern racial appearance only developed in the last 15-10,000 yrs? Even I said it was likely a lot longer than that. Europeans left black but likely lightened within a few thousand years.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan
I didn't know we were discussing random groups like “ambidextrous midgets with cystic fibrosis & green eyes” or other groups like families. You keep trying to claim races can be conflated with families or ad hoc groups of diseased midgets. The difference is these groups aren't taxa.
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CeltoSaxonKnight
"You keep trying to claim races can be conflated with families or ad hoc groups of diseased midgets. The difference is these groups arent taxa"
Exactly. Neither are red headed, left handed lesbians. But I am still supplying as much detail, if not more, in my example of a Goobley as you are when you talk about your races of "white, black, asian, hispanic" etc.
I guess Im a Goobley realist. Youre all just weak egalitarians afraid to admit Vavavooms write left handed & lick pussy
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight
"Can they be a species if not, why not?"
...One good reason is because they have what we define to be a human genome.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheNarcMan
Then follow your own reasoning from case to principle. Something is something if the concept & definition we design refers to an actual entity in the world. Thus it can be said races have the kind of genomes we expect races to have – which is persistent divergence ones brought about through geo-isolation & exposure to different kinds of environments.
Your acceptance of species is consistent with an acceptance of race; your denial of race is consistent with a denial of species.
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CeltoSaxonKnight
""this doesn't make white families with it a 'race'."
I agree. What is the point?"
How does disease susceptibility among any given group, large or small (family or continental), do anything but hint at a genetic relationship that we already knew or assumed was there?
Are you suggesting race deniers deny population genetics? At least we don't abuse it. Or can ambidextrous midgets with cystic fibrosis & green eyes be a race? If not why not?
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@socrates856 Race is defined as: "A population of interbreeding species that develops distinct characteristics differing from other populations of the same species, especially as caused by geographical isolation." The deniers can't refute the existence or evolutionary origins of race, so they throw out red herrings about gene maps, intermediate varieties/imprecisions, concerns over prejudices, etc., which don't address the biological definition of race.
LibertarianRealist 3 weeks ago
@LibertarianRealist I can cluster pure dog breeds fine. But if I cluster humans I do not find these "distinct characteristics" that you seem to point to. Skin color tone by and large change smoothly geographically, so do other direct adaptive qualities, such as the correlation between malaria regions and sickle cell anemia. What you evidently deny is those facts. And yes that has to do with the "biological" definition of "race" that you fail to demonstrate.
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@socrates856 Black skin color is a distinctive racial trait, since only certain subgroups of humans exhibit it. That observation would still be valid if there were 6 billion mulattoes of varying shades and only a handful of pure blacks and pure whites left in the world. Race would still be a meaningful category as long as distinct heritable traits exist in some populations.
LibertarianRealist 3 weeks ago 5
@LibertarianRealist At what skin tone is someone "black"? You realize that skin tone changes gradually with geography, right? And that environmental factor prediction maps very closely relate to the actual skin color maps. I.e. direct sun-light exposure, and geographically closeness to the equator is a predictor. Are south indian people part of the "black" race? I.e. I don't talk "mulattoes" when I point this out at all.
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@socrates856 You affirm race by even mentioning "south indian people." You know that they can be differentiated from black African people (by hair, soft tissue traits, skull shape, DNA analysis, etc.) even if they both have dark skin. You're merely engaging in semantics over labels, not refuting the existence of human populations with distinct SETS of heritable characteristics.
LibertarianRealist 3 weeks ago 5
@LibertarianRealist No, I affirm that there is a geography called "india" and that we understand things like "north" and "south". And no, I'm not engaging in semantic games. I'm asking a real questions. But yes you are dodging them. I have challenged your notion of "distinct". It's up to you to provide that measure of distinction. You are failing to provide it.
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@socrates856
As people making such a controversial positive claim of such vital importance race realists could probably be posed at least 50 questions that their philosophy/hypothesis would have to be able to answer to or die out. Even the least & most pathetic of these seem unanswerable.
1. What is your definition of significantly biologically different human groups (in intelligence/behaviour/temperament etc).
2. Give some examples consistent with your definition of this racial taxon.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@socrates856 Whilst I'm not entirely sure what you are hammering away at, I can assure you that distinct racial divides exist. Taxonomy is not quite an exacting science - any taxonomist would tell you that. But differences exist between different populations that are substantial enough to amount to a significant sub-species divide. Whether or not you choose to refer to those divides as race divides is matter of personal preference.
SmippeHyrst 3 weeks ago
@SmippeHyrst You assurance means nothing.
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@LibertarianRealist
"You affirm race by even mentioning "south indian people.""
Yeah the other day I was telling my girlfriend a funny story about something my Dad did once in the kitchen. He is a member of that proud race the kitchen people. My talking about it affirms it.
Once again Librealist reduces himself to the racial equivalent of "If God doesn't exist why are you talking about him?" as though race deniers don't believe in some magical people of old legend from the south of India. Psshht
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@LibertarianRealist It's hopeless, no matter how many of socrates856 points and questions you respond to. It will never be enough, you'll always be supposedly "dodging" questions.
This video might interest you: The Dumbfuckery of socrates856 /watch?v=t44KLKBkd2k
DKshad0w 3 weeks ago
@socrates856 Check the 2008 paper 'European genes mirror european geography'. The fact that distinct differences within major races can be identified to pinpoint people to a small geographical locations and groups shows that viable taxa exist within the species. And take neoteny - that varies significantly between different races. Whilst variation will always exist within races, that doesn't nullify the fact that significant average differences between races can also be identified.
SmippeHyrst 3 weeks ago
@SmippeHyrst See, this is the problem precisely. You find a paper that vaguely seems to fit your thought process, and you interpret it in a certain way and then exptrapolate it to something it doesn't actually say. Now what DOES that paper actually say? Will you tell us or will you just use it for propaganda? I guess your conception of "race" must live a few hundred kilometers apart inside Europe. (cont)
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@SmippeHyrst (cont) And you misuse the word "distinct" again.
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@SmippeHyrst See I have asked someone earlier what constitutes "race" because they made a point similar to yours here. Sure we can see genetic variation. But we see that already between siblings. I fully expect that then we have dense genome data that we will be able to see very fine differences with fine geographies. So does that mean that populations from Cedar Rapids and Boise in Idaho constitute different races? Why not?
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@SmippeHyrst And take your paper, why does this NOT mean that north-germans and south-germans are different "races"? That is precisely what I have been asking and people are failing to provide. People point at difference and give vague principles, but they apply in ways that don't fit what they clearly want to be the case. You and close family members can be genetically differentiated. Does that mean your family has multiple races?
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@socrates856 - Just out of curiosity do you believe that there are different breeds of dogs or is that a dog social construct?
anywayokey 3 weeks ago
@socrates856 There is height variation within all races. There are also significant average height differences between races, like the difference between the Chinese and the Dutch. But by your reasoning, such an average difference cannot qualify as one of a number of traits contributing towards a general sub-species divide. You presumably would argue that so long as such traits are variable within all groups, average differences between groups (however substantial) never apply in taxonomy.
SmippeHyrst 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SmippeHyrst No, you don't understand what I critique. Differences between people are given. What you don't give me is what "race" is. Sure you can call any circle you draw on a map a "race" but that doesn't make that a biological concept. That make you attribute the patterns you find underneath that circle you drew to that circle. To then claim that "races" are real just means that you want us to have some sort of respect for your circles even though they are arbitrary.
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@socrates856 Like I've said - animals and plants do not come with labels providing clear lines of distinction - and that often includes species divide. You have to take account of both morphological and genetic differences to draw dividing lines. Whilst I'm not a scientist, I do read that such dividing lines exist significant enough to amount to a sub-species divide, something you seem to reject out of hand.
SmippeHyrst 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SmippeHyrst Sure and we can describe animals and plants by clinal models. Oddly enough we don't have "clinists" running around demanding that we use that model. I wonder why...
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@socrates856 "why does this NOT mean that north-germans and south-germans are different "races"?" They could be, but it would not helpful to the classification of different human groups to ascribe the same ethnic divide between (for instance) scandanavians and the Irish as between mongoloids and negroids. A sub-racial divide would be more appropriate, like the difference between the congoid and bushmen negroid groups .
SmippeHyrst 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SmippeHyrst Sure and by the same argument you and your parents and siblings could be different races too. So if it's arbitrary and depending on what fits your argument why should we accept it as biological. Yes there are differences in complex ways. Let describe them from the difference and not from some imposed vague notion that can be applied to any difference in any way it seems. Welcome to the New York City "race", because we can find a difference to Boston.
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@socrates856
You claim the definition of race isn't 'strict'. Please explain what constitutes a 'strict' definition & why?
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight I give you two people and you have to sort them into the matching groups. You give me the criterion and I can perform the sorting without further discussion. That would be sensibly strict definition.
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@socrates856
I don't think biology allows for that... Nature being too varied. But let's see - say I give you 2 organisms and you have to sort them into species. Can you give me the criterion for species by which I can perform the sorting without further discussion?
Clue: there's about 7 different accepted definitions of species.
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight Sure. Speciation is a pretty solid functional mechanism by which we can delineate species. One can bicker around the edges, but even the exceptions are fairly easy to classify themselves. So give me that rule and I can indeed put specimen quite neatly into boxes and I have a structured way to talk about exceptions without waving hands. So yes I'd be happy to classify without further discussion that way.
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@socrates856
"Speciation is a pretty solid functional mechanism by which we can delineate species."
OK. What is solid about it? Given there's 7 to 10 different definitions...
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight Speciation means that two animals which used to be an interbreeding subspecies can no longer interbreed. That is a functional definition. You can test for interbreeding and that test gives you a solid delineator. It's solid because there are very large groups of animals that are very cleanly sorted into different distinct groups by it and exceptions are very rare and tend to be in the transition of subspecies to species, hence too tend to be easily explained.
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@socrates856
"Speciation means that two animals which used to be an interbreeding subspecies can no longer interbreed."
No. Firstly that definition has no meaning for asexually reproducing organisms.
Secondly is it even consistent in sexually reproducing animals – various species of bugs are inter-fertile. In mammals different species of canis also produce fertile offspring.
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
"exceptions are very rare and tend to be in the transition of subspecies to species"
I'm interested in proof or backing for that assertion.
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight Well we have a word for tiger-lion hybrids and we can even describe how speciation fails in that case. But yes I am amused that you try to twist me arm accepting a failed taxonomy while attacking a sensibly working one. The rhetoric trick is blatant. You want to indicate that species taxonomy is "as fuzzy as". But that's untrue. It's blatantly false. So why do you pursue this line of argument?
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@socrates856 "Speciation means that two animals which used to be an interbreeding subspecies can no longer interbreed." Not necessarily - by that standard neanderthals would be classed as homo sapiens. Lions and tigers are a different species but can inter-breed. Genus is the key divide (I think) where no inter-breeding can occur.
SmippeHyrst 3 weeks ago
@SmippeHyrst You missed the part where I talked about exceptions. How about you pay attention before you chime in?
socrates856 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@socrates856
"if you want to claim that skin color is skin deep"
That isn't my claim... I'm saying what you find in geographic populations are correlations in the likelihood of possessing certain traits. As expected by evolution...
What you seem to be claiming is akin to saying right-handedness doesn't correlate to race therefore race cannot exist. Well the traits of having 2 eyes, teeth, or 4 limbs, don't correspond to species - does that refute species-realism too? If not why not?
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan
I don't see a philosophical or scientific argument against race in your comments. You seem to just assert an opinion that whilst there is population difference you personally don't think it's 'significant'. Yet I descry no methodology for why; or what this means...
Certain traits not being consistent with race is congruent with selection pressures, ontogenetics & random mutation not being consistent. Race however is congruent with trait frequency as expected by evolutionary theory.
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CeltoSaxonKnight
"I don't see a philosophical or scientific argument against race in your comments"
Even if your vision isn't 20/20 give your eyes a chance as your anus is clearly 0/0.
"assert an opinion that whilst there is population difference you personally don't think it's 'significant'. Yet I descry no methodology for why; or what this means..."
I was going to do a whole video series on taxonomy starting with Aristotelian essentialism through to why "race" is invalid. Then I went 'meh'.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight
"Certain traits not being consistent with race is congruent with selection pressures, ontogenetics & random mutation not being consistent. Race however is congruent with trait frequency as expected by evolutionary theory"
It's a lot funnier when youse just flake & talk about dog breeds & shit.
All this wishful thinking but if I ask you for a trait indicative of race you'll most likely just whip out your cum soaked copy of the bell curve & hurt my brain meat.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan
If you ask me for a trait indicative of race then you misunderstand evolutionary theory. Therefore 2 questions:
1) What philosophical framework are you working under?
2) Under that framework are human subspecies possible?
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight 1) Reality and scientific epistemology 2) Everything is possible, the question is: what is true and describe reality well.
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@socrates856
OK. Could you then using your framework offer a description/definition of a human subspecies? What properties would they have? What would clearly demarcate boundaries between multiple possible subspecies? How would you expect traits to vary & why? How would you know that they were a 'subspecies' as opposed to what we call 'races' today?
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight There are plenty of structure theories for genome and gene expression. How about clines? Just open an actual textbook on human genetics and you'll find lots of ways to talk about genetic variations among humans. Just turns out that we don't get good clusters when we try.
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@socrates856
“Just turns out that we don't get good clusters when we try”
I think that's wrong. Given evolution, the variability of nature prohibits any notion of highly resolved objects in gene space. You should expect overlapping & clines in certain but not all directions.
But anyway we're back to value judgements like 'good'. What is a good cluster & why?
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight What you "think" doesn't really matter. What matters is what you know the studies show. And we can fantasize all day what we should expect. If we don't want to just fantasize we should at least state what we do see.
Actually in science we have rather solid measures for what makes a good clustering and what doesn't. To start into that field pick up a basic textbook on pattern classification (e.g. Duda and Hart).
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@socrates856
To me truth matters whoever thinks it.
OK if you've read this book of answers then I have a poser for you. There are 5 populations that linearly cluster A, B, C, D, E. They overlap without clear separation in such a way that A can interbreed with B, B with C, C with D, D with E. However E & A can no longer interbreed & are as physically & genetically distinct as most species today - yet neither is a resolved cluster in gene-space. What is their taxonomic relationship & why?
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight You see how you already suppose you have those clusters. But that is already the problem. We don't get clear clusters, so the question of overlap isn't yet there. We can discuss the overlap when we have sensible clustering. But we don't. The reason why I say this is that genome clustering turns out to be highly sensitive to clustering methods and parameter chosen. Imaging if all clustering methods gave the same simple answer, say 5 populations. (cont)
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight (cont) then we would be ready to perhaps entertain what you are asking me and it being related to what the data shows.
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight Further we do know that we can get separating clusters even within species. Pure Dog breeds cluster fine. Yet dog genes are still closer than typically speciated cases, so if you can give me an actual example of the case you hypothesize perhaps we can clarify.
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@socrates856
The question is a philosophical one. It is possible & deserves to be answered by any who insist on distinct clusters.
Dog breeds are artificially isolated, so the comparison isn't apt.
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight I don't know about you, but I like to discuss reality. And philosophy is only of interest if it helps us with reality. If you want to present me with a hypothetical that actually reflects what we have, I'd be happy to discuss it. And you forget what I insist on. I don't insist on distinct clusters those those guarantee that there is no controvery. I insist on actual clusters, which is a far easier bar to meet. (cont)
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight (cont) and I agree fully that dog breeds are not a good example, but guess what. That's the kind of comparisons that racists make on youtube. Just watch FE's video. He insinuates that the dog breed situation really is like the situations for humans. But yes, it's not an apt comparison by any stretch. I'd not to contend with it at all.
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight Here is a philosophical question for you: What do we do if no natural clusters spring from the data? And those clusters that we can construct (such as by blood group alleles) don't match "racial" boundaries. Is it not the sound position to seek models that better explain the data, such as clines etc?
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@socrates856
The question does help with reality. It asks why clean & distinct objects are necessary. The clusters we have allow for racial identification > 99.9%.
Blood groups alleles are restricted sets. Find the stuff responsible for having 2 legs & a nose - that'll overlap: does this disprove geographical group differences over other traits?
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CeltoSaxonKnight "The clusters we have allow for racial identification > 99.9%." Er no. I thought you were interested in reality.
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@socrates856
"Er no."
Explain.
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight You pull a number out of your behind that is not matching what the summary of gene clustering literature gives us. You have the splaining to do why you spread falsehoods.
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight And blood group alleles actually WORK for a taxonomy. That is the point of that example. It is not hard to taxonomize humans if you use the right kinds of criteria.
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@socrates856
“It is not hard to taxonomize humans if you use the right kinds of criteria.”
Then I fail to see how or why you can object to race. Races differ from any other group/population construct because they refer to persistently divergent populations resulting from geographical isolation & exposure to different kinds of environments.
Races aren't 'just' populations, they are populations with distinct, measurable properties that are consistent with evolution. (cont'd)
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight
Isolation causes genetic separation leading to speciation. New species don't just pop up from nowhere, they emerge from extant populations through recognisable mechanisms like geo-isolation. I mean do you really expect 40,000 years of isolation + exposure to different environments b/w 2 groups to have no more taxonomic significance than 2 groups not isolated & living in the same environment?
CeltoSaxonKnight 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight Sorry telling. Yes all sorts of factors impact genetic variation. And we understand quite a bit of this. But we don't get "distinct" groups along the 19th century racial blocks. We don't get "black" and "white". The problem is that you cannot actually talk about the actual data. You talk about your racial shit before you look at it. Noone disputes variation. What is disputed is your false pre-hoc grouping. And if you actually started to look at data...
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight Why do I object to "race" when I don't object to taxonomy by blood group? One is actually and obviosly biological, the other doesn't spring from the data. We can talk about genetic data and we actually have much better ways to structure the data than "race", for example clines. Why do you not use good models rather than a failing one? You still cannot give me what a "race" is btw. And what your "distinct" criterion is. Blood group it's clear.
socrates856 3 weeks ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight
"Dog breeds are artificially isolated, so the comparison isn't apt."
You people try to use dog breeds all the time to make arguments from shallow external appearances. Now that genetics argues against you dog breeds are out? As I said, you're all like Joseph Smith reading your special gold plates out of a magic hat. We're not allowed to look at them & if you lose them you just move the goal posts & start over again making shit up as you go.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan What is the evidence Neanderthal man evolved in Africa? There were preceding homin species in Europe long before neanderthals came on to the scene, and the best contender for the spawning of neanderthals homo antecessor - a european branch of homo. And even if we accept the OOA theory, does any evidence suggest those initial Africans were of negroid ethnic appearance. I thought negroid ethnic traits did not begin to appear until 30,000 years ago at the very earliest.
SmippeHyrst 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SmippeHyrst
"What is the evidence Neanderthal man evolved in Africa?"
Mitochondrial DNA evidence.
"There were preceding homin species in Europe long before neanderthals came on to the scene, and the best contender for the spawning of neanderthals homo antecessor - a european branch of homo"
The earliest known homo of Europe.
"even if we accept the OOA theory"
Which we should based on evidence.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@SmippeHyrst
"any evidence suggest those initial Africans were of negroid ethnic appearance"
If by negroid you mean the majority Bantu population of Africa today than no as even today there are still surviving minority groups who look physically different. Yet even you would look at them & think "Africans" apart from the far north where people have entered from the Middle East over the last few thousand years. Would one environment evolve many different homo facial structures/skin tones?
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan The OOA (which I'm not wholly convinced by) contends that homo sapiens left Africa some 80,000 years ago. That is a massive amount of time where racial evolution is concerned, many argue that today's racial groupings are a mere 10-15000 years old. So the Africans that left Africa all that time ago and subsequently spawned today's non-African races would (in all likelihood) have looked a whole lot different to today's African races.
SmippeHyrst 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SmippeHyrst
"The OOA (which I'm not wholly convinced by) contends that homo sapiens left Africa some 80,000 years ago"
Wasn't this a failed exodus? The first successful leaving of Africa was 60,000 yrs ago by Australian Aboriginals, the most distantly related people to modern Africans.
"Africans ... would (in all likelihood) have looked a whole lot different to today's African races"
But for them to be anything but dark skinned & broad featured in that part of the world wouldn't make sense.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@SmippeHyrst
Or would all the homos to come out of Africa over the last several million years had other qualities in common besides some features of an evolving skeletal structure? If you look at the global co ordinates of Saharan & north Africa then no matter the climate (hot & dry or even during ice ages) this is a part of the earth that has always favoured melanin & broad sloping faces. Only a race creationist would suggest that nature made an exception so white people could emerge OOA
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@SmippeHyrst
"the best contender for the spawning of neanderthals homo antecessor - a european branch of homo"
You mean Homo antecessor preceded Homo heidelberensis who preceded Homo neanderthalensis, right?
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan Neanderthals were specially adapted to a cold climate - barrel chests and short, stubby hands, fingers, and feet were adaptations for the cold and they endured ice ages. So white skin seems likely. I think you said that the original neanderthals evolved in hotter Africa with dark skin !
SmippeHyrst 3 weeks ago
@SmippeHyrst
"I think you said that the original neanderthals evolved in hotter Africa with dark skin!"
You asked what evidence there was neanderthalensis evolved in Africa. I read it as 'came from'. I was still clear anyway. (I think this is right...) Homo ergaster --> Homo antecessor in Africa, antecessor moved to Europe via Middle East ---> Homo heidelbergensis ---> Homo neanderthalensis. With all the evidence of this not sure why you doubt OOA. Oh, coz you don't want to be related to blacks.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheNarcMan "With all the evidence of this not sure why you doubt OOA. Oh, coz you don't want to be related to blacks." BTW - your time line for the homo variants is not really a case for OOA as such, which leads me to wonder if you actually know what OOA is.
SmippeHyrst 3 weeks ago
Semitic languages trace back to Africa, East specifically. All the East & North was once "negroid" (leaving statues & cave paintings of black people) until desertification of the Sahara. This is what emptied N.Africa. Ancestors of negroes & ethiopians went south & east while ancestors of Semites/Arabs went north before returning to become Egyptians & other dark brown N.Africans. The archaeology, languages & genetics all says this. What have you read that suggests otherwise?
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan stop the afro-centric bullshit.
Read what the Egyptians landlords treated and saw the Nubians.
Blacks were labeled animals... heck, even Ghandi stated this.
Ghandi was racist lil indian
XSUPERIORBLACKMANx 3 weeks ago
@XSUPERIORBLACKMANx
"stop the afro-centric bullshit"
You don't get to call me on "afro centrism". Not when I rail against it myself (black people claiming ancient Greeks, Egyptians & south Americans "negro") & especially when you're so biased with a fuckhead's username & the habit of calling people nigger swine.
I notice you didn't answer my question. I'll ask again (in vain no doubt).
What have you read that suggests otherwise?
Title & author. Thanks DanishGreatDouche.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@LibertarianRealist
Imagine Western Europe & the British Isles were moved to the Indian Ocean. Blacks still left Africa but ended up there instead of Europe. They never evolved to look European but remained in the climate zone to remain "African" in appearance. But like the Europeans who left Africa they left any sickle cell anaemia prevalence behind. So now they're a different race because of disease infrequency even though they may be the same as Africans in almost every other way? Riiiiiight.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan The sub-Saharan black race of which you speak didn't migrate out of Africa and evolve into whites. Whites evolved from the original humans who inhabited parts of Africa whose native populations aren't black, with a small contribution from neanderthals. Variation in disease susceptibility isn't sufficient to identify racial populations. The study of disease susceptibility in blacks presupposes that black populations have been identified via other indicators.
LibertarianRealist 3 weeks ago 3
@LibertarianRealist
"The sub-Saharan black race of which you speak didn't migrate out of Africa and evolve into whites"
I didn't think I'd have to argue the finer points of OOA theory with you. Fuck me.
"Whites evolved from the original humans who inhabited parts of Africa whose native populations aren't black, with a small contribution from neanderthals"
The neandertals were black once too. Sorry, Africa doesn't spawn light coloured skin. They evolve outside Africa then return.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@TheNarcMan Neandertals are never depicted in museums and textbooks as having black skin. Depictions must be raysist. Look, OOA doesn't mean we all came from blacks. "African" is often used to refer to blacks, but you'll find very few blacks in North Africa. The original Africans were not sub-Saharan negroids.
LibertarianRealist 3 weeks ago 4
@LibertarianRealist
"Neandertals are never depicted in museums and textbooks as having black skin"
Neither is Gerard Depardieu (not even when he played a part negro Alexandre Dumas nyuk nyuk nyuk).
I said, and I quote;
"The neandertals were black once too." The key word being WERE. Feel free to re-read the post if you don't believe me. I gotta say I respect you for upholding your libertarian values by not being a Bessy Blockalot but are you straw manning on purpose or should I just feel pity?
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
@LibertarianRealist
""African" is often used to refer to blacks, but you'll find very few blacks in North Africa."
Again, Africa didn't historically spawn light skin. Even Africa's non-Bantu minorities are completely alien tones of grey or yellow to Europeans. North Africans are relatively recent arrivals over the last few millenia just like South Asians were black like Aboriginals until Indo Chinese expansion & S.Africa was pygmy & san until Bantu expansion.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LibertarianRealist
"Variation in disease susceptibility isn't sufficient to identify racial populations"
Something we agree on.
"The study of disease susceptibility in blacks presupposes that black populations have been identified via other indicators"
And as I said, the basis for who is "black" (besides skin colour of course) is so tenuous or downright lacking that disease susceptibility may even be a better taxonomic attribute than anything else you've got. Which is nothing.
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago
Anti-racism should be called racial creationism.
SAEuropeanPatriot 3 weeks ago 2
Using race is the wrong indicator of susceptibility and there shouldn't be one if race is the only other option. There isn't enough biological grounds or consistency for the concept to be credible in something as vital as medicine.
Doctors & other highly educated people tend to avoid circular reasoning when a life is on the line.
"What's the situation doc?"
"We need the defib! Poor motherfucker's going into heart failure coz he's black! & I know he's definitely black coza the heart failure!"
TheNarcMan 3 weeks ago