Nevertheless, true evolution is monophyletic like all mammals as group is monophyletic and all Indo-Europeans or Aryans is monophyletic even though Indo-Europeans are distinguish by different degrees of tan to peach skin pigmentation with Balochis being the darkest Indo-Europeans and Kashmiris and Nordic Europeans being the lightest.
There are no race groups. White has been determined to by a polyphyletic trait that emerged amongst non-related Asiatic people that had settled in Europe 5,000 years ago. And blackness is paraphyletic, which is like reptiles. You see Crocodiles are closer related to birds than they are to snakes and turtles. Nevertheless, we falsely assume them to be one group of organisms distinct from birds
As for the Annunaki, they look like the girl who is my avatar. Grey skin and blue hair. Nothing like us
Not quite. Race by skin pigmentation is an error and supported by myths. But you can distinguish humans into races, you just have to look at lactose intolerance and feeding habits as well as language characteristics. Overall you end up with much of the diversity of humanity being situated in Africa and it makes white people ultimately a subgroup of black people, specifically Niger-Saharans, which are the dominant and most numerous group of black people in Africa.
@SmartGuy4today And yet it isn't accepted by today's scientific consensus the mere notion of modern human races. This concept was shunned and replaced with the better fitting notion of 'ethnic groups' which is the appropriate term for nowadays to discuss genetic differences between various populations. And therefore I'm saying Human races do not exist and you can even see that since the 1950's there wasn't any use of this term in Biologic/Genetic academic literature.
It called ethnic groups, because we started to detail people by sociology. Ethnic Group is not a biological difference between people, it is a sociological or cultural distinction, such as between Sunni Iraqis and Shi'ite Iraqis. They are both members of the same nationality, but they are distinct ethnic groups within the same Macro-Ethnic Group known as Arabs.
@SmartGuy4today I'm not trying to be impudent but I would like to see evidence to these claims of yours in any study conducted in the last 50 years or so. Can you refer me to any of such studies which come to a conclusion for the existence of distinguishable human races or refer to it as an axiom? (Personally I doubt there is any).
Off Topic, but I find this interesting. Is there anything as an absolute truth in science given what we know concerning an electron? Now let me ask you another question relative to what I had already asked. If there are no absolute truths in science then why do you assume that facts in science are absolute truths, when in science there are no absolute truths? It appears to be a contradiction.
Here is another one, why is the burden of proof always situated in each argument?
The point I am making is you assume I shouldn't even speak. That I don't have the right to talk and yet, I find that quite puzzling you would authorize such rudimentary authoritarian behavior when we both dwell in a liberal democracy, not a fascist autocracy and we both adhere to the same virtues relative to that system of government. So how is it you would impose such a contradiction on your very self as to how you would address me. Or rather why would u allow a contradiction to exist
The truth of the matter is that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights allows me to speak freely as I choose and I don't need to follow this burden of proof crap that you been brainwashed to follow. It isn't any law that forces me to address such and as such I can continue to voice a million times as I want. I can even haunt you in saying the same thing as much I want, because there is no authority to enforce your habitual belief. As a matter, it is quite silly and you should agree.
Now to answer your question, since you are quite immature and I also believe no more than a high school graduate at best or lacking too much in the liberal arts or good science professors to know what is true about this field of inquiry you take too seriously in a very fallacious manner that is quite untrue of the nature of the field it self. I sure hope you know that. Besides my own findings that I am still working on, I also have read a great on a wide range of others. Continued...
There is the works on the Borean Language Super Family by Harold C. Fleming which dates all Eurasian and North African languages sharing a common ancestor about 16,000 years ago, there is the consonant mutation which was discovered in all Borean languages as well as a great deal of certain West African Languages which can be found in the Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Continued....
There is a language and Genetics project performed by Simon E. Fisher of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics which has found that certain linguistic factors are made by genetic triggers. There is also a published paper by George Hinge, titled, "Language and Race: Theocritus and the Koine Identity of Ptolemaic Egypt" that identifies race or genetic ethnic groups being establishing that parallel the establishment of languages.
However, what you are looking for is something basic. A direct and complete truth, you know a fact. Like "All humans are mortal." Even though such is uncharacteristic and a blasphemy to science, I sincerely doubt you are smart enough nor familiar enough with science to GET any of that. So I'll humor your lack of education, try Associate Professor Goran Strkalj's work who has published work relative to human "races" in 2008. That should satisfy your apish absurdities.
But there are human races, it is just that only a serious geneticist would know any about that. However, without a distinct characteristic it is really hard to detail. One we have noticed in lactose tolerance, which is found in all Niger-Saharan populations throughout Eurasia and Africa, but not found in the Bushmen of South Africa, the Pygmies in Central Africa, the Melanesians of Papua New Guinea, Australian Aboriginals, and the vast majority of Native Americans.
Of course it would be Paraphyletic to refer to all native non-lactose tolerant populations as being a separate group from all tolerant populations. Yet rather it signifies all tolerant populations to be a significant group with a common ancestry that ties them together, while also distinguishing everyone else as a multiple of different races which all share a common ancestor much more distantly in the past. Plus linguistics and ability to use certain vowels also proves this.
The point I am going for is that if we are to catalog humans as races, we cannot go by such incorrect Polyphyletic and Paraphyletic terms as Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid nor can we go by any other term used to distinguish humans by their morphological characteristics, we cannot even use the Y-Chromosome because that can also be spurred as a Polyphyletic characteristic. Instead, we have to go by percentage of Neanderthal DNA, Lactose Tolerance, and Linguistic similarities
Nevertheless, true evolution is monophyletic like all mammals as group is monophyletic and all Indo-Europeans or Aryans is monophyletic even though Indo-Europeans are distinguish by different degrees of tan to peach skin pigmentation with Balochis being the darkest Indo-Europeans and Kashmiris and Nordic Europeans being the lightest.
SmartGuy4today 1 month ago
Actually blackness could also by polyphyletic, but if you assume Khoisan to be black, then I would argue it is paraphyletic in a very strange manner.
SmartGuy4today 1 month ago
There are no race groups. White has been determined to by a polyphyletic trait that emerged amongst non-related Asiatic people that had settled in Europe 5,000 years ago. And blackness is paraphyletic, which is like reptiles. You see Crocodiles are closer related to birds than they are to snakes and turtles. Nevertheless, we falsely assume them to be one group of organisms distinct from birds
As for the Annunaki, they look like the girl who is my avatar. Grey skin and blue hair. Nothing like us
SmartGuy4today 1 month ago
Race is a myth.
MechaWar 1 year ago
Not quite. Race by skin pigmentation is an error and supported by myths. But you can distinguish humans into races, you just have to look at lactose intolerance and feeding habits as well as language characteristics. Overall you end up with much of the diversity of humanity being situated in Africa and it makes white people ultimately a subgroup of black people, specifically Niger-Saharans, which are the dominant and most numerous group of black people in Africa.
SmartGuy4today 1 month ago
@SmartGuy4today And yet it isn't accepted by today's scientific consensus the mere notion of modern human races. This concept was shunned and replaced with the better fitting notion of 'ethnic groups' which is the appropriate term for nowadays to discuss genetic differences between various populations. And therefore I'm saying Human races do not exist and you can even see that since the 1950's there wasn't any use of this term in Biologic/Genetic academic literature.
MechaWar 1 month ago
It called ethnic groups, because we started to detail people by sociology. Ethnic Group is not a biological difference between people, it is a sociological or cultural distinction, such as between Sunni Iraqis and Shi'ite Iraqis. They are both members of the same nationality, but they are distinct ethnic groups within the same Macro-Ethnic Group known as Arabs.
SmartGuy4today 1 month ago
Comment removed
SmartGuy4today 1 month ago
Comment removed
SmartGuy4today 1 month ago
@SmartGuy4today I'm not trying to be impudent but I would like to see evidence to these claims of yours in any study conducted in the last 50 years or so. Can you refer me to any of such studies which come to a conclusion for the existence of distinguishable human races or refer to it as an axiom? (Personally I doubt there is any).
MechaWar 1 month ago
Comment removed
SmartGuy4today 1 month ago
Comment removed
SmartGuy4today 1 month ago
Off Topic, but I find this interesting. Is there anything as an absolute truth in science given what we know concerning an electron? Now let me ask you another question relative to what I had already asked. If there are no absolute truths in science then why do you assume that facts in science are absolute truths, when in science there are no absolute truths? It appears to be a contradiction.
Here is another one, why is the burden of proof always situated in each argument?
SmartGuy4today 1 month ago
The point I am making is you assume I shouldn't even speak. That I don't have the right to talk and yet, I find that quite puzzling you would authorize such rudimentary authoritarian behavior when we both dwell in a liberal democracy, not a fascist autocracy and we both adhere to the same virtues relative to that system of government. So how is it you would impose such a contradiction on your very self as to how you would address me. Or rather why would u allow a contradiction to exist
SmartGuy4today 1 month ago
The truth of the matter is that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights allows me to speak freely as I choose and I don't need to follow this burden of proof crap that you been brainwashed to follow. It isn't any law that forces me to address such and as such I can continue to voice a million times as I want. I can even haunt you in saying the same thing as much I want, because there is no authority to enforce your habitual belief. As a matter, it is quite silly and you should agree.
SmartGuy4today 1 month ago
Now to answer your question, since you are quite immature and I also believe no more than a high school graduate at best or lacking too much in the liberal arts or good science professors to know what is true about this field of inquiry you take too seriously in a very fallacious manner that is quite untrue of the nature of the field it self. I sure hope you know that. Besides my own findings that I am still working on, I also have read a great on a wide range of others. Continued...
SmartGuy4today 1 month ago
There is the works on the Borean Language Super Family by Harold C. Fleming which dates all Eurasian and North African languages sharing a common ancestor about 16,000 years ago, there is the consonant mutation which was discovered in all Borean languages as well as a great deal of certain West African Languages which can be found in the Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Continued....
SmartGuy4today 1 month ago
There is a language and Genetics project performed by Simon E. Fisher of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics which has found that certain linguistic factors are made by genetic triggers. There is also a published paper by George Hinge, titled, "Language and Race: Theocritus and the Koine Identity of Ptolemaic Egypt" that identifies race or genetic ethnic groups being establishing that parallel the establishment of languages.
SmartGuy4today 1 month ago
However, what you are looking for is something basic. A direct and complete truth, you know a fact. Like "All humans are mortal." Even though such is uncharacteristic and a blasphemy to science, I sincerely doubt you are smart enough nor familiar enough with science to GET any of that. So I'll humor your lack of education, try Associate Professor Goran Strkalj's work who has published work relative to human "races" in 2008. That should satisfy your apish absurdities.
SmartGuy4today 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
But there are human races, it is just that only a serious geneticist would know any about that. However, without a distinct characteristic it is really hard to detail. One we have noticed in lactose tolerance, which is found in all Niger-Saharan populations throughout Eurasia and Africa, but not found in the Bushmen of South Africa, the Pygmies in Central Africa, the Melanesians of Papua New Guinea, Australian Aboriginals, and the vast majority of Native Americans.
SmartGuy4today 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Of course it would be Paraphyletic to refer to all native non-lactose tolerant populations as being a separate group from all tolerant populations. Yet rather it signifies all tolerant populations to be a significant group with a common ancestry that ties them together, while also distinguishing everyone else as a multiple of different races which all share a common ancestor much more distantly in the past. Plus linguistics and ability to use certain vowels also proves this.
SmartGuy4today 1 month ago
The point I am going for is that if we are to catalog humans as races, we cannot go by such incorrect Polyphyletic and Paraphyletic terms as Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid nor can we go by any other term used to distinguish humans by their morphological characteristics, we cannot even use the Y-Chromosome because that can also be spurred as a Polyphyletic characteristic. Instead, we have to go by percentage of Neanderthal DNA, Lactose Tolerance, and Linguistic similarities
SmartGuy4today 1 month ago