iNow Posted June 1 Posted June 1 (edited) You need education. Subspecies doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means 2 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said: I think of Homo sapiens sapiens as being three subspecies: Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid You must also think calico cats are a different subspecies from black cats and white gray ones. I’m sorry your day gets so confusing every time you walk passed the bell peppers in the produce section of your local market. Edited June 1 by iNow
TheVat Posted June 1 Posted June 1 2 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said: Some man met some woman to fabricate a temporary body for my soul in 1963 according to what I believe. They sound so anonymous. Were you left in a basket outside an orphanage? 2 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said: I see Man as a member of the animal kingdom. I think of Homo sapiens sapiens as being three subspecies: Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid. https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/ A landmark 2002 study by Stanford scientists examined the question of human diversity by looking at the distribution across seven major geographical regions of 4,000 alleles. Alleles are the different “flavors” of a gene. For instance, all humans have the same genes that code for hair: the different alleles are why hair comes in all types of colors and textures. In the Stanford study, over 92% of alleles were found in two or more regions, and almost half of the alleles studied were present in all seven major geographical regions. The observation that the vast majority of the alleles were shared over multiple regions, or even throughout the entire world, points to the fundamental similarity of all people around the world—an idea that has been supported by many other studies (Figure 1B). If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark” alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others. However, the 2002 Stanford study found that only 7.4% of over 4000 alleles were specific to one geographical region. Furthermore, even when region-specific alleles did appear, they only occurred in about 1% of the people from that region—hardly enough to be any kind of trademark. Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races” have distinct, unifying genetic identities. In fact, there is ample variation within races (Figure 1B)....
sethoflagos Posted June 1 Posted June 1 3 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said: I think of Homo sapiens sapiens as being three subspecies: Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid. And yet despite being one of the master race, you ended up in your sixties shuffling round Walmart wondering who's fault it was you were still at the bottom of the heap. Oh dear, how sad. Time for you to head back to your cold lonely pond and crawl beneath your stone I think.
CharonY Posted June 1 Posted June 1 1 hour ago, TheVat said: Furthermore, even when region-specific alleles did appear, they only occurred in about 1% of the people from that region—hardly enough to be any kind of trademark. And it also should be added that these markers are usually linked to location and time. So for example a dark skinned person in the caribbean will more likely to share those markers with a light-skinned person in that region (assuming their ancestors lived there for an extended time) than with a random dark-skinned person in, say, Madagaskar. And to add a cherry on top, the group with the largest genetic diversity are groups in Africa. So putting all dark skinned folks into single group is utterly nonsensical. But then coherence is probably too much to expect from someone who on the one hand emphasizes a soul over the physical body but then two paragraphs further forgets all about it and then overemphasizes superficial features. "We are all souls! Except when you got curly hair!" 1
JohnDBarrow Posted June 1 Author Posted June 1 (edited) 4 hours ago, CharonY said: And it also should be added that these markers are usually linked to location and time. So for example a dark skinned person in the caribbean will more likely to share those markers with a light-skinned person in that region (assuming their ancestors lived there for an extended time) than with a random dark-skinned person in, say, Madagaskar. And to add a cherry on top, the group with the largest genetic diversity are groups in Africa. So putting all dark skinned folks into single group is utterly nonsensical. But then coherence is probably too much to expect from someone who on the one hand emphasizes a soul over the physical body but then two paragraphs further forgets all about it and then overemphasizes superficial features. "We are all souls! Except when you got curly hair!" My notions of racial divisions come from studying my dictionary: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/negro Negro Anthropology. (no longer in technical use) of, relating to, or characteristic of one of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, generally marked by brown to black skin pigmentation, dark eyes, and tightly curled hair and including especially the Indigenous peoples of Africa south of the Sahara. Older dictionaries often incuded large lips and flat noses in the above definition. Bulging eyeballs also seem common as well as small, round heads like cantaloupes. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/Mongoloid Mongoloid Anthropology. (no longer in technical use) of, relating to, or characteristic of one of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, marked by prominent cheekbones, epicanthic folds about the eyes, and straight black hair, and including the Mongols, Manchus, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Annamese, Siamese, Burmese, Tibetans, and, to some extent, the Inuits and the American Indians. In my observations, small somewhat upturned flat noses seem common on such peoples as above. Their skin tone varies from pale as a ghost to yellow to red to brown. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/caucasian Caucasian Anthropology. (no longer in technical use) of, relating to, or characteristic of one of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, marked by fair to dark skin, straight to tightly curled hair, and light to very dark eyes, and originally inhabiting Europe, parts of North Africa, western Asia, and India. In my observations, large and/or hooked noses (beezers as my grandmother called them or beaks) are common among such peoples of the Mediterranian or Middle East. North Germanics/Scandinavians have long heads and faces and/or prominent chins. It seems as Slavics, particularly Russians, have distinctive facial features. 6 hours ago, iNow said: You need education. Subspecies doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means You must also think calico cats are a different subspecies from black cats and white gray ones. I’m sorry your day gets so confusing every time you walk passed the bell peppers in the produce section of your local market. The subspecies (or breed, variety, cultivar) notion is more in the facial features (for animal kingdom members). Persian cats seem to have particularly flat faces while Siamese cats have a particular head and ear shape. Their ears seem sharply pointed and their muzzles seem prominent. Calico, black and white/gray cats tend to be alley cats or mongrels. Edited June 1 by JohnDBarrow -2
joigus Posted June 1 Posted June 1 5 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said: Calico, black and white/gray cats tend to be alley cats or mongrels. No. They tend to be female. Can you be constantly wrong in a little less inflammatory way? 1
JohnDBarrow Posted June 1 Author Posted June 1 32 minutes ago, joigus said: No. They tend to be female. Can you be constantly wrong in a little less inflammatory way? Anyway, this is all trivial stuff. I'm personally trying do my part to make this world as least crappy as possible whether the hand of fate ever brings me back here or not in some future lifetime. I drive an Earth-friendly 1995 Toyota Corolla: 31 MPG highway, 10% Ethanol grade gasoline is what I use. I don't understand all the hostility here. Has modern science gone "woke"? Dictionary authors seem to have gone woke these days by omitting flat noses and large lips from how NEGRO is defined. Can't we say that black people and white people are as anatomically different as Dromedary camels and Bactrian camels? Might African and Asian elephant differences be a better analogy? The contours and proportions of human and animal faces and heads are measureable. And calling cats mongrel hurts some feelings here too? -2
iNow Posted June 1 Posted June 1 6 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said: Anyway, this is all trivial stuff. And yet you persist in being trivially wrong 7 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said: Dictionary authors seem to have gone woke In similar spirit, this thread should go dormant
joigus Posted June 1 Posted June 1 (edited) 1 hour ago, JohnDBarrow said: Can't we say that black people and white people are as anatomically different as Dromedary camels and Bactrian camels? Might African and Asian elephant differences be a better analogy? No, we can't. Modern humans diverged into their different phenotypical varieties, if you will, about 70,000 ya. while, Quote ~4.4 million years ago The divergence time between the Bactrian camel and dromedary was ~4.4 million years ago (1.9 to 7.2 million years ago) (Wu et al., 2014), and genetic studies confirmed (Ji et al., 2009; Silbermayr et al., 2010; Jirimutu et al., 2012; Mohandesan et al., 2017) that the wild two-humped camel was different from the ...Aug 12, 2022 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9374477/#:~:text=The divergence time between the,camel was different from the around 6 million years ago¹ African and Asian elephants diverged from a common ancestor around 6 million years ago¹ and are two distinct species that differ in many physical attributes². For example, Asians have small round ears and twin-domed heads while Africans have large ears and rounded heads².Apr 25, 2023 Modern humans are in fact genetically closer together than most other species. One of the few species that are much tighter together than us is the cheetah. Have you heard of the 70,000 year old bottleneck due to the Toba eruption? Cheetahs are eve much closer together than us because their bottleneck happened only 10,000 ya. All this info you can find on the internet. You only have to bother doing so. Edited June 1 by joigus minor correction
JohnDBarrow Posted June 1 Author Posted June 1 56 minutes ago, joigus said: No, we can't. Modern humans diverged into their different phenotypical varieties, if you will, about 70,000 ya. while, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9374477/#:~:text=The divergence time between the,camel was different from the around 6 million years ago¹ African and Asian elephants diverged from a common ancestor around 6 million years ago¹ and are two distinct species that differ in many physical attributes². For example, Asians have small round ears and twin-domed heads while Africans have large ears and rounded heads².Apr 25, 2023 Modern humans are in fact genetically closer together than most other species. One of the few species that are much tighter together than us is the cheetah. Have you heard of the 70,000 year old bottleneck due to the Toba eruption? Cheetahs are eve much closer together than us because their bottleneck happened only 10,000 ya. All this info you can find on the internet. You only have to bother doing so. -2
swansont Posted June 1 Posted June 1 ! Moderator Note “I will explain why in my opinion” That’s a big NOPE, (this is not about opinion) along with our rule about not posting videos by themselves I think we’ve had enough here. 1
Recommended Posts