Stevie Wonder Posted April 9, 2018 Author Posted April 9, 2018 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Ten oz said: Rather than just continuing this game of demanding evidence of your preference from others how about you just provide some of your own? I have supplied peer reviewed research. You don't agreed with it and that is your prerogative. How about you go ahead provide whatever proof it is you have that show race is a true biologically relevant thing in humans. Imagine how much easier that would be than just demanding answers from other. So for all you have attempted to cite is Kant, Dawrin, and Blumenbach all of whom used outdated methods. New doesn't equal better in but genetics is a superior method of determining species and copious amounts of information has been learn since there time. I think everyone in this discussion have asked you to going ahead and lay out your case yet you just respond with sarcasm and out of context questions which apparently cannot be answer to you satisfaction. Please, go ahead and make your case. What is your evidence? Lol what? I've repeatedly defined race by shared ancestry, just like other taxa. I'm just using standard biology. It allows one to make group associated predictions, and so it's a valid concept. You're the one spewing nonsense about "genetic variation within versus between groups" and gigantic copy pastes as if that somehow contradicts what I'm saying. Why shouldn't I ask you to explain how that's relevant? It was satisfying to see you couldn't. Just fake science. Would you have flipped out about "genetic variation between groups" if I'd mentioned a subspecies of blackbird (who have subspecies between group variation down to 1%)? Blatant political fake science. 21 minutes ago, Strange said: Well, you can find copious peer-reviewed literature, courses and text books on taxonomy, the Linnaean system, cladistics, etc. If you look up most organisms on Wikipedia for example, you will find information on the species, genus, family, order, kingdom, etc. Is there the same level of scientific documentation on how to classify people by race? I think the answer is no (but am open to correction) which suggests it is not a [useful] biological category. (Note, there is no meaningful distinction between a useful category and a biological category, because biological categories only exist in as far as they are useful.) Well obviously there are million of studies that use the race concept to this day using terms like "European ancestry". Crack a genetics journal. 21 minutes ago, Strange said: Really? There are Chinese people who look Middle Eastern, who look Mongolian, or Tibetan, or like Han Chinese or ... And of course, there are Chinese people who look like Northern Europeans or Afro-Carribeans. And ... That is a bizarrely diverse group to try and stereotype. Really? So you would describe Jared Taylor (who was born in Japan) as "looking Japanese"? Or are you playing games? Clearly I meant having a Chinese appearance. Are you too PC to describe people's appearance? Is saying "Chinese looking" a racist hate crime now? I'm never sure what's new. I lived in China for 2 years and Korea for 5, so I can tell them apart. How about you? 21 minutes ago, Strange said: Really? I mean, Really?? Time for the ignore list, I guess. You get all "OMG I can't even" when people point out anti-White racism? Why is that? But no, feel free to ignore me. I'll happily do the same. Edited April 9, 2018 by Stevie Wonder
Ten oz Posted April 9, 2018 Posted April 9, 2018 16 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said: Lol what? I've repeatedly defined race by shared ancestry, just like other taxa Cool, can you link some research?
Stevie Wonder Posted April 9, 2018 Author Posted April 9, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Ten oz said: Cool, can you link some research? You're unaware of any research which uses terms like "European ancestry"? https://research.vu.nl/en/publications/short-telomere-length-is-associated-with-impaired-cognitive-perfo https://www.rdm.ox.ac.uk/publications/825521 Edited April 9, 2018 by Stevie Wonder
Ten oz Posted April 9, 2018 Posted April 9, 2018 Just now, Stevie Wonder said: You're unaware of any research which uses terms like "European ancestry"? I would like to read some research you consider good. It will put of the same page looking at the exact same info. 14 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said: https://research.vu.nl/en/publications/short-telomere-length-is-associated-with-impaired-cognitive-perfo https://www.rdm.ox.ac.uk/publications/825521 Neither of these outline race. You are arguing that race is more than a social construct. Can you please support that with research that addresses such?
Stevie Wonder Posted April 9, 2018 Author Posted April 9, 2018 6 minutes ago, Ten oz said: I would like to read some research you consider good. It will put of the same page looking at the exact same info. I think I'm really done talking to you. 6 minutes ago, Ten oz said: Neither of these outline race. You are arguing that race is more than a social construct. Can you please support that with research that addresses such? Race is defined by shared ancestry. That's how Darwin defined it. So it's exactly the same as the Darwinian race concept.
Ten oz Posted April 9, 2018 Posted April 9, 2018 3 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said: I think I'm really done talking to you. Because I am asking to read the information on this topic you deem relevant? This is a rather basic request and very common on this forum. 6 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said: Race is defined by shared ancestry. That's how Darwin defined it. So it's exactly the same as the Darwinian race concept. Are there no scientists or research being done today you think is worth a read? I have already explained why I don't think your criterion is accurate and link research. You told me it was wrong. So now please provide what is right.
John Cuthber Posted April 9, 2018 Posted April 9, 2018 23 hours ago, Stevie Wonder said: It seems you fail to understand the meaning of the word predict. Your "exceptions" response was entirely predictable lame sophistry. "Chinese" allows one to make several correlated predictions. Really your responses have been so consistently lame and disingenuous that you aren't worth responding to. I've heard all of the pop fallacies before. The "prediction" you say you can make from the knowledge that someone is "Chinese" was that they have black hair. OK, if I tell you that an animal is a great ape (Hominidae), what can you tell me about that animal's hair colour? (Here's a hint- if it's not an orangutan, it's almost bound to be black haired) So, your "race" is no more use than the Family, and yet you are hoping to use it to subdivide a single species. Good luck. 12 hours ago, Stevie Wonder said: If I tell you somebody is Chinese that allows you to make predictions about their appearance. Well, yes- sort of (though it's not very specific). Now, tell me where in science they use the concept "looks like they are from China (or thereabouts)"? Also, I already asked you this. How do you define "race"? 37 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said: Race is defined by shared ancestry. We still all have the same ancestors, notably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve so that's still a useless definition.
Stevie Wonder Posted April 9, 2018 Author Posted April 9, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: The "prediction" you say you can make from the knowledge that someone is "Chinese" was that they have black hair. OK, if I tell you that an animal is a great ape (Hominidae), what can you tell me about that animal's hair colour? (Here's a hint- if it's not an orangutan, it's almost bound to be black haired) So, your "race" is no more use than the Family, and yet you are hoping to use it to subdivide a single species. You could also predict they have epicanthic folds and EDAR 370A. I could go on. Quote Well, yes- sort of (though it's not very specific). Now, tell me where in science they use the concept "looks like they are from China (or thereabouts)"? Also, I already asked you this. How do you define "race"? By ancestry. I wrote it in my last post. I've written it about 20 times. Do you have a defective memory? Quote We still all have the same ancestors, notably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve so that's still a useless definition. LOL. Organisms share more or less ancestry. Do amoebae have the same ancestors as snakes? No, they have some different ancestors among some common ancestors. They don't have "the same ancestors". Do you have "the same ancestors" as your cousin? You just don't make any sense. Edited April 9, 2018 by Stevie Wonder
John Cuthber Posted April 9, 2018 Posted April 9, 2018 Just now, Stevie Wonder said: Do amoebae have the same ancestors as snakes? No, they have some different ancestors. Since the actual answer is "yes"- that's why both use DNA as their genetic material- it's clear that you don't even science. All humans have at least one common ancestor- mitochondrial Eve. So, if the definition of race is "shared ancestry" then all humans are (as I pointed out) part of the same race.
Stevie Wonder Posted April 9, 2018 Author Posted April 9, 2018 (edited) 1 minute ago, John Cuthber said: Since the actual answer is "yes"- that's why both use DNA as their genetic material- it's clear that you don't even science. All humans have at least one common ancestor- mitochondrial Eve. So, if the definition of race is "shared ancestry" then all humans are (as I pointed out) part of the same race. Having some common ancestors doesn't mean you have "the same ancestors". All living things have common ancestors. They don't have "the same ancestors". How stupid. Edited April 9, 2018 by Stevie Wonder -1
Ten oz Posted April 9, 2018 Posted April 9, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said: Having some common ancestors doesn't mean you have "the same ancestors". All living things have common ancestors. They don't have "the same ancestors". How stupid. Which is why I have asked you for information outlines specifically what you mean. Sadly you refuse to provide it. Edited April 9, 2018 by Ten oz Typo
Stevie Wonder Posted April 9, 2018 Author Posted April 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, Ten oz said: Which is why I have asked you for information outlines specifically what you mean. Sadly you refuse to provide it. I don't understand what an "information outline" is. I gave you a simple definition, around 20 times. If you can't wrap your head around simple concepts like some things sharing more ancestors versus other things there is not much I can do about that.
John Cuthber Posted April 9, 2018 Posted April 9, 2018 12 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said: Having some common ancestors doesn't mean you have "the same ancestors". All living things have common ancestors. They don't have "the same ancestors". How stupid. Not at all stupid. I have two parents, four grandparents, 8 great grandparents and so on. If that carried on then 30 generations ago I'd have had about a billion (great)^30 grand parents. 30 generations is roughly 600 years. so that would have been about 1400 AD. But there were only roughly a third of a billion people around. https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth I had three times more ancestors than there were people. And, of course, if you go back further , it gets worse. I run out of people who could have been my ancestors. So, how does that work? Well, some of them are the same people- they will all have been distant cousins etc. That same analysis also works for "some bloke in China". He can follow the same route and conclude that many or most of the world's population in 1400 were ancestors of his. (And an even bigger fraction if he goes back further). So, if you look back far enough, every human on Earth was his ancestor and every human on Earth was my ancestor. So the Chinese bloke and I had- necessarily- the same set of ancestors. Or, you can look at it the other way round. At some stage there was the first "tribe" of "humans"- it doesn't matter much what definition you use for humans. All my ancestors at that time were part of that tribe. All the Chinese bloke's ancestors were part of that tribe. If you go back far enough you end up with what might as well be called Adam and Eve- the first two humans. All the tribe must be descended from them and so the Chinese bloke and I are descended from them. We really do- very obviously- all have the same set of ancestors. 6 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said: I gave you a simple definition, I, for one, would like a less simple one- one which makes sense.
Stevie Wonder Posted April 9, 2018 Author Posted April 9, 2018 5 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: So the Chinese bloke and I had- necessarily- the same set of ancestors. LMAO
Ten oz Posted April 9, 2018 Posted April 9, 2018 6 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said: I don't understand what an "information outline" is. I gave you a simple definition, around 20 times. If you can't wrap your head around simple concepts like some things sharing more ancestors versus other things there is not much I can do about that. Your concept claims that race is more than just a social construct. That is not something science uniformly supports. So it isn't simple. I would like research that outlines/supports your position. Not merely you just stating something as fact.
Stevie Wonder Posted April 9, 2018 Author Posted April 9, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Ten oz said: Your concept claims that race is more than just a social construct. That is not something science uniformly supports. So it isn't simple. I would like research that outlines/supports your position. Not merely you just stating something as fact. Yes I linked some. You ignored it. Really the quality of discussion here is abysmal and beneath me. Cheers. Edited April 9, 2018 by Stevie Wonder
John Cuthber Posted April 9, 2018 Posted April 9, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said: LMAO That's not a scientifically valid point. You seem unable to do better than to say it's a laugh or stupid, or whatever. But you can't actually show that it's wrong, can you? Either prove that your ancestors differ from mine (or anyone else's) , or accept that your definition is useless. Edited April 9, 2018 by John Cuthber
Stevie Wonder Posted April 9, 2018 Author Posted April 9, 2018 Just now, John Cuthber said: That's not a scientifically valid point. You seem unable to do better than to say it's a laugh or stupid, or whatever. But you can't actually show that it's wrong, can you? Either prove that your ancestors differ from mine, or accept that your definition is useless. Do we have the same mother?
Ten oz Posted April 9, 2018 Posted April 9, 2018 Just now, Stevie Wonder said: Yes I linked some. You ignored it. What you link was about medical conditions certain groups of people are more prone to. Those neither defined race or sought to prove anything about race.
John Cuthber Posted April 9, 2018 Posted April 9, 2018 Just now, Stevie Wonder said: Do we have the same mother? No. But I did say "if you go back far enough. Is it that you don't understand that one generation really isn't very far, or are you just trolling? Do we have the same set of (Great^30) grand mothers? We each have roughly half a billion and there were only about 160 million women to choose from. Mine were the women who were around at the time. Who were yours?
Stevie Wonder Posted April 9, 2018 Author Posted April 9, 2018 3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: No. QED
Ten oz Posted April 9, 2018 Posted April 9, 2018 10 hours ago, Ten oz said: You keep referencing "shared ancestry" but then ignoring that fact all humans have shared ancestry. A person has 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, and etc. By the 10th generation one has over a thousand direct great grandparents and that's just going back a couple hundred years. Just within those thousand/couple hundred years the diversity is enormous. Your point about "shared ancestry" isn't nearly specific enough to be useful when all humans are basically cousins. 2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: No. But I did say "if you go back far enough. Is it that you don't understand that one generation really isn't very far, or are you just trolling? Do we have the same set of (Great^30) grand mothers? We each have roughly half a billion and there were only about 160 million women to choose from. Mine were the women who were around at the time. Who were yours? The point was bought up pages back and ignore then too. It would be nice if they would link something which outline their definitions and applied them towards race but it has become obvious that simply isn't going to happen.
John Cuthber Posted April 9, 2018 Posted April 9, 2018 Just now, Stevie Wonder said: QED No. I didn't ask you to say if we had the same mother (That was your strawman) - I asked you to say if, at some point far back in time, our ancestors- at that time- must have been the same. What was to be shown was the falsehood of my assertion that, if we went back far enough, we all have the same set of ancestors and thus your definition of race- based on ancestry- is unworkable. I'm off to bed now so you have plenty of time to think about it. See if you can come up with something better than three letters of trolling.
Stevie Wonder Posted April 9, 2018 Author Posted April 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: No. I didn't ask you to say if we had the same mother (That was your strawman) - I asked you to say if, at some point far back in time, our ancestors- at that time- must have been the same. What was to be shown was the falsehood of my assertion that, if we went back far enough, we all have the same set of ancestors and thus your definition of race- based on ancestry- is unworkable. I'm off to bed now so you have plenty of time to think about it. See if you can come up with something better than three letters of trolling. If you go back far enough all living things have common ancestors. That doesn't mean they have the same ancestors. Ancestry based classifications aren't based on ancestors at point X "far back enough". They're based on the totality of ancestry. Please stay in bed and do not waste my time any further with your absurd posts.
Ten oz Posted April 9, 2018 Posted April 9, 2018 1 minute ago, Stevie Wonder said: If you go back far enough all living things have common ancestors. That doesn't mean they have the same ancestors. Ancestry based classifications aren't based on ancestors at point X "far back enough". They're based on the totality of ancestry. Please stay in bed and do not waste my time any further with your absurd posts. Cool, can you provide a link outlining your specific definition and how it applies to race so we may review it and understand specifically what you are trying to say?
Recommended Posts