Race Realism

[JimC]

So, as I expected, nothing to support the contention upon which all your waffle now rests. What distinguishes one race from another such that every human on the planet falls into one specific race group and is necessarily excluded from all others? In other words, if races exist, as you assert, then define them.

look, I'm white... if I bed a black lass and beget oiffspring, odds are it will be coffee and milk... we'll have done an Abomination before the Lord and indulged in creating a third race from our two.

So I suspect you will reject Galaxian's assertion that different forms of humanity "are reluctant to interbreed"...

[Svartalf]

Well, I'm much less reluctant to interbreed with Asians than with Africans, but I know plenty of guys who seem not reluctant at all, and I chalk it down to a matter of taste.

[Svartalf]

Of course, Chinese, Japanese and Koreans being culture centric to the point they are, they just might be reluctant to interbreed with a Westerner

[rainbow]

And that stupid diagram mislabeling 3 subspecies as 3 species! How dumb can they get? To confuse subspecies with species!

The diagram doesn't label people as 3 species, or suspecies.
Why do you feel the need to lie about something that we can all see and read?
Please don't assume that we are as stupid as you are.
Are you from the Planet Twat?

So you didn't look at the diagram, eh? "Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo erectus"

They don't describe them as sub-species of mankind.
Are you being stupid or dishonest?

Homo = Genus. Sapiens = Species. sapiens = subspecies. Repeat after me:
Homo = Genus. Sapiens = Species. neanderthalensis = subspecies. And again:
Homo = Genus. Sapiens = Species. erectus = subspecies.

None of which were in the article.

...so you admit to being dishonest.

Thank you for the clarification.

Now on the stupidity. All humans are Homo Sapiens, there are no subspecies of Homo Sapiens.

Did you not actually know that?

[Galaxian]

So, as I expected, nothing to support the contention upon which all your waffle now rests. What distinguishes one race from another such that every human on the planet falls into one specific race group and is necessarily excluded from all others? In other words, if races exist, as you assert, then define them.

look, I'm white... if I bed a black lass and beget oiffspring, odds are it will be coffee and milk... we'll have done an Abomination before the Lord and indulged in creating a third race from our two.

No, not a third race, but a hybrid. As highlighted above, the words & meaning thereof are twisted & exaggerated to produce heat rather than light.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1e/51/28 ... 11e220.gif

Galaxian has illustrated previously that if the Earth was populated by millions of identical clones. Left to its own devices these would diverge into different species & subspecies. It's happened before & is a Law of Natural Selection.

[rainbow]

Of course, Chinese, Japanese and Koreans being culture centric to the point they are, they just might be reluctant to interbreed with a Westerner

Some might, but I personally know of a number of intermarriages between westerners and Eastern Asians. It takes a very small number of 'interbreedings' over a few generations to result in a significant intermixture.

[rainbow]

Galaxian has illustrated previously that if the Earth was populated by millions of identical clones. Left to its own devices these would diverge into different species & subspecies. It's happened before & is a Law of Natural Selection.

The only thing Galaxian demonstrated is the she doesn't understand the science.

BTW quoting discredited racist pseudo-scientists does her case no merit.

[Hermit]

Galaxian has illustrated previously that if the Earth was populated by millions of identical clones. Left to its own devices these would diverge into different species & subspecies. It's happened before & is a Law of Natural Selection.

Thanks for the link. Based on the work by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues on blood groups in living populations and the connections between migration patterns and blood groups, it supports Rainbow's migration diagram in this thread's opening post. The parallels are convincing and unmistakeable. Unfortunately for you it is evidence in favour of the complete opposite of your assertion. Earth was initially populated by a small group of genetically relatively similar populations. As they spread out geographically and increased in number there remained less time for evolutionary change. That is why later groupings are more similar to each other while their differences in comparison to the original African ancestors increased.

Rainbow's diagram:

Blood polymorphism study


A 1994 study by Cavalli-Sforza and colleagues evaluated genetic distances among 42 native populations based on 120 blood polymorphisms. The populations were grouped into nine clusters: African (sub-Saharan), Caucasoid (European), Caucasoid (extra-European), northern Mongoloid (excluding Arctic populations), northeast Asian Arctic, southern Mongoloid (mainland and insular Southeast Asia), Pacific islander, New Guinean and Australian, and American (Amerindian). Although the clusters demonstrate varying degrees of homogeneity, the nine-cluster model represents a majority (80 out of 120) of single-trait trees and is useful in demonstrating the phenetic relationship among these populations.[19]

The greatest genetic distance between two continents is between Africa and Oceania, at 0.2470. This measure of genetic distance reflects the isolation of Australia and New Guinea since the end of the Last Glacial Maximum, when Oceania was isolated from mainland Asia due to rising sea levels. The next-largest genetic distance is between Africa and the Americas, at 0.2260. This is expected, since the longest geographic distance by land is between Africa and South America. The shortest genetic distance, 0.0155, is between European and extra-European Caucasoids. Africa is the most genetically divergent continent, with all other groups more related to each other than to sub-Saharan Africans. This is expected, according to the single-origin hypothesis. Europe has a general genetic variation about three times less than that of other continents; the genetic contribution of Asia and Africa to Europe is thought to be two-thirds and one-third, respectively.[19][20]

To wit:

[rainbow]

The geneticist Luca Cavalli-Sforza has died aged 96. A pioneer of human population genetics and member of the Royal Irish Academy, he is best known for reconstructing the history of human populations through studies of genetic variation. He is regarded as the father of the field of genetic anthropology. By illustrating the biological continuity between populations and nuances resulting from continual migration both within and across political borders, Cavalli-Sforza insisted that the idea of race was unfounded and serves no purpose.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-sty ... -1.3644636

[Brian Peacock]

That in no way supports your blind assertion. If ring species are relevant then simply show that relevance within the context of race. ....

Blah, blah, blah. None so blind as those who REFUSE to see. Don't have the time or energy to flog a dead horse.

That's interesting, because at the moment you've neither brought the horse in from the field, groomed it, tacked it up, or ridden it into town. As far as I can see you stumbled across a bit of carrion in the woods, assumed it was vaguely horse shaped, and started venting your frustrations on the carcass in a forlorn attempt at self-catharsis. Basically, you're just kicking a dead chicken mate.

Look, my recent posts have addressed your assertion that races exist. Please stop pretending that you've supported this assertion. You haven't - as well you know.

If races exist, what factor or factors allow us (you) to distinguish one race group from another such that each human on the planet can secure their membership of one group to the exclusion of all other groups.

Perhaps a picture might help focus your wavering attention(?)

By what means can we determine the race of these people?

[Galaxian]

Galaxian has illustrated previously that if the Earth was populated by millions of identical clones. Left to its own devices these would diverge into different species & subspecies. It's happened before & is a Law of Natural Selection.

Thanks for the link. Based on the work by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues on blood groups in living populations and the connections between migration patterns and blood groups, it supports Rainbow's migration diagram in this thread's opening post. The parallels are convincing and unmistakeable. Unfortunately for you it is evidence in favour of the complete opposite of your assertion. Earth was initially populated by a small group of genetically relatively similar populations. As they spread out geographically and increased in number there remained less time for evolutionary change. That is why later groupings are more similar to each other while their differences in comparison to the original African ancestors increased.
......
A 1994 study by Cavalli-Sforza and colleagues evaluated genetic distances among 42 native populations based on 120 blood polymorphisms. The populations were grouped into nine clusters: African (sub-Saharan), Caucasoid (European), Caucasoid (extra-European), northern Mongoloid (excluding Arctic populations), northeast Asian Arctic, southern Mongoloid (mainland and insular Southeast Asia), Pacific islander, New Guinean and Australian, and American (Amerindian). Although the clusters demonstrate varying degrees of homogeneity, the nine-cluster model represents a majority (80 out of 120) of single-trait trees and is useful in demonstrating the phenetic relationship among these populations.[19]
To wit:

The genetic distance trees have little bearing on the mode of dispersal; whether a single emigration or multiple ones over a much longer time period. Infact modern proposals are tending towards the multi-regional hypothesis as more fossils are unearthed going back further than the 100,000 years of the single emigration theory. Furthermore, the genetic analysis and rational deduction tends to support several archaic hominins already long out of Africa over the past 2 million years. These interbred with successive later migrations. So the genetic drift charts have no bearing on the simplified & clumsy diagram posted in the OP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregi ... ic_studies
"in 2002, Alan Templeton published a genetic analysis involving other loci in the genome as well, and this showed that some variants that are present in modern populations existed already in Asia hundreds of thousands of years ago."

What is even more striking is the bare-faced self-interest & bias of taxonomists in naming & classifying mammals & other organisms. They love giving unique names to them that they can be remembered by. So every tiny variation is lauded as a new sub-species or even species. That's how the number of species on Earth has been so vastly over-stated. The million species has been inflated to over ten million... now largely for political purposes. (Most of them are simply subspecies or varieties).

So, that first table I posted is even more important than the above two:
https://d3i71xaburhd42.cloudfront.net/3 ... ble2-1.png

The above table PROVES that the restriction of humans (and dogs) to just one species with no sub-species is a bogus, phoney concoction of vested interests with little allegiance to impartial, truthful science!

[rainbow]

The above table PROVES that the restriction of humans (and dogs) to just one species with no sub-species is a bogus, phoney concoction of vested interests with little allegiance to impartial, truthful science!

No.
What it proves is that you're not bright enough to understand the data.

...so nothing new

[Galaxian]

The above table PROVES that the restriction of humans (and dogs) to just one species with no sub-species is a bogus, phoney concoction of vested interests with little allegiance to impartial, truthful science!

No.
What it proves is that you're not bright enough to understand the data.
...so nothing new

"Stupidity & genius are very similar. But there's a limit to genius!" Napoleon Bonaparte.
"The universe and stupidity are infinite. But I am not sure about the universe." Albert Einstein.

[Hermit]

...the genetic analysis and rational deduction tends to support several archaic hominins already long out of Africa over the past 2 million years.

Indeed. Remains of many ancestors have been found outside of Africa before H. sapiens even appeared on the scene as a species about 350,000 years ago. The limited interbreeding of H. sapiens with Denisovians and Neanderthals has been taken into account. There is at this stage no evidence of interbreeding with others, although In February 2019, scientists discovered evidence, based on genetics studies using artificial intelligence that suggests interbreeding with a third, as yet unidentified human ancestor species in the genome of modern humans (linkiepooh).

None of this supports one iota of your phantasmagorical confabulations. They remind me of the surreal depiction of The Garden of Earthly Delights by Hieronymus Bosch.

[Galaxian]

...the genetic analysis and rational deduction tends to support several archaic hominins already long out of Africa over the past 2 million years.

Indeed. Remains of many ancestors have been found outside of Africa before H. sapiens even appeared on the scene...
None of this supports one iota of your phantasmagorical confabulations. They remind me of the surreal depiction of The Garden of Earthly Delights by Hieronymus Bosch.

You begin by confirming my assertion about the very ancient & multiple migrations of archaic hominins out of Africa. Thank you for that. Infact the migrations went both ways, and the evolution continued everywhere. Still, nevermind....

Even though Galaxian has said that for several years, the idea may have been novel to you. However, the logic of Galaxian couldn't be accepted by you or others here. Have you wondered why?
The reason is that Galaxian thinks out of the box. Galaxian is a leader, not a follower. But when I look behind me there's no one. Why should I care? I only search & discover the truth and the facts for their intrinsic value, for broadening my horizons, for the sheer pleasure. That is why my knowledge & insight goes well beyond the learned articles and experts that you so admire.

So you're a follower. You must follow what the celebrities and fashionistas tell you, the paths they lay down for you. You cannot deviate from that, even if they are lies or motivated by tenure, grants & fame. So, if Galaxian says that 2+2=4 , it is pure crap... till you hear it from a world famous mathematician, or you had been taught it at school. If Wittgenstein says that 2+2 is NOT equal to 4, then you would stand in awe at his genius, because he was a celebrity.

If Dawkins says that human subspecies exist and that Lewontin's Fallacy is BS & he should stick to sociology, then that is fine & dandy. But when Galaxian says such a thing it is due to stupidity and "phantasmagorical confabulations". Though I've said before "accept the facts even though they are graffiti"... in anticipation of such derision.

There's much that I could reveal, but will not do so. It's as Jesus said about throwing pearls to the swine... that they would not be appreciated but trampled underfoot.

Thank you for comparing me somewhat to the great Hieronymus Bosch. It is an honor indeed!