Race Realism

[Brian Peacock]

Note Galaxian's bait and switch, diverting attention from his failure to support his categorical statement that races exist by disputing the "ancient & multiple migrations of archaic hominins". Supposition regarding the latter does not support or demonstrate the former.

[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...
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!

You're getting progressively weirder. Read your post again, and try to find something that actually addresses what I wrote in the previous post. Also, I did not compare you in any way, shape or form to Hieronymus Bosch. What I did write was that your phantasmagorical confabulations remind me of the surreal depiction of his triptych titled The Garden of Earthly Delights. I repeat: You are in dire need of remedial reading comprehension lessons. You are not stupid. Not at all. But you are batshit crazy. Seek help.

[Hermit]

Note Galaxian's bait and switch, diverting attention from his failure to support his categorical statement that races exist by disputing the "ancient & multiple migrations of archaic hominins". Supposition regarding the latter does not support or demonstrate the former.

Ergh. Glaxative is just ranting. Business as usual. Lately he has taken to fill his posts with worn out clichés and threadbare platitudes to cover for his inability to mount a sensible argument. Four of them in the past three hours in this thread alone.

"...throwing pearls to the swine..."
"...flog a dead horse"
"None so blind as those who REFUSE to see."
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"

I am surprised he has not trotted out the one that goes something like "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

As a last resort losers of an argument tell their opponents what they think or do. Glaxative follows this method quite obediently. Like so:

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.

Thanks, Glaxative. If you had not told me, I would not have known how to react if you said 2+2=4, or in what manner I ought to stand if Wittgenstein says that 2+2 is NOT equal to 4.

[Seabass]

Gotta love a good triptych...

Galaxian has been very active lately. He usually only appears when someone mentions his name. I guess even intergalactic space travel gets boring after a while, eh?

[Woodbutcher]

Gotta love a good triptych...

Galaxian has been very active lately. He usually only appears when someone mentions his name. I guess even intergalactic space travel gets boring after a while, eh?

He did have to supervise the British election so that our overlords were happy with the results.

[Hermit]

Note Galaxian's bait and switch, diverting attention from his failure to support his categorical statement that races exist by disputing the "ancient & multiple migrations of archaic hominins". Supposition regarding the latter does not support or demonstrate the former.

To be fair, Glaxative never disputed the "ancient & multiple migrations of archaic hominins". From what I can make out, he just rejects the "Out of Africa" hypothesis in favour of the multiregional hypothesis, aka multiregional evolution (MRE), or polycentric hypothesis. He linked this diagram of it earlier in the thread:



From the Wikipedia article:

The hypothesis contends that the mechanism of clinal variation through a model of "Centre and Edge" allowed for the necessary balance between genetic drift, gene flow and selection throughout the Pleistocene, as well as overall evolution as a global species, but while retaining regional differences in certain morphological features.[1] Proponents of multiregionalism point to fossil and genomic data and continuity of archaeological cultures as support for their hypothesis.

The multiregional hypothesis was first proposed in 1984, and then revised in 2003. In its revised form, it is similar to the Assimilation Model, which holds that modern humans originated in Africa and today share a predominant recent African origin, but have also absorbed small, geographically variable, degrees of admixture from other regional (archaic) hominin species.[2]

In my view the evidence available to date favours the "Out of Africa" hypothesis.

As for Glaxative's assertions regarding human races, there is no point engaging in any discussion with him for as long as he puts up the strawman argument that ("To Gavin Evans, ALL people MUST be identical") manages to cram three falsehoods into two short, consecutive sentences without even attempting to provide any evidence whatsoever to support them ("Homo Erectus (correctly called Homo Sapiens erectus) died out only 70,000 to 10,000 years ago in its purer form. And even before that, it interbred quite profusely with other human varieties") and provides a link to an article supposedly supporting his contention that Homo erectus is a subspecies alongside Homo sapiens, which turns out to not even mention Homo anything, let alone Homo erectus.

[Galaxian]

Note Galaxian's bait and switch, diverting attention from his failure to support his categorical statement that races exist by disputing the "ancient & multiple migrations of archaic hominins". Supposition regarding the latter does not support or demonstrate the former.

I don't know why you come to this forum, Brian. Do you actually learn anything from it? Do you pay attention to the replies given?

Going by the official DEFINITION of race/subspecies, Galaxian has nailed your feet to the floor. Here it is again. I won't bother translating the bleedin' obvious for you...since you're not interested anyway. Are you a troll by any chance? Or a plant from the NSA, an asset of theirs? Put here to keep an eye on things and direct the discussion towards approved policies?

Species: Organisms that find it difficult or impossible to be cross fertile under natural conditions.
Sub-species: Varieties of the same species who can hybridize, but are reluctant to have sexual association/mate.

Sub-species are biologically evident when we examine their genetic distance apart:
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.word ... ations.pdf

https://d3i71xaburhd42.cloudfront.net/3 ... ble2-1.png


As they say; "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." i.e: Note how other animals are liberally given sub-species names (Number of recognized extant subspecies) , but because of prejudice humans are exempt even though they have more genetic distance, and some human populations may be considered to be separate SPECIES, such as me & my spouse. One reason why there are so many fertility clinics...but you hadn't thought of that, eh?

The above table is the END of this debate. No one has reason to dispute it. Any objection is a fart in the wind. PERIOD!

[laklak]

AIn't no such thing as "reluctant to mate" sub-species.

I know me.

[Galaxian]

AIn't no such thing as "reluctant to mate" sub-species.
I know me.

[Brian Peacock]

Note Galaxian's bait and switch, diverting attention from his failure to support his categorical statement that races exist by disputing the "ancient & multiple migrations of archaic hominins". Supposition regarding the latter does not support or demonstrate the former.

I don't know why you come to this forum, Brian. Do you actually learn anything from it? Do you pay attention to the replies given?

Going by the official DEFINITION of race/subspecies, Galaxian has nailed your feet to the floor. Here it is again. I won't bother translating the bleedin' obvious for you...since you're not interested anyway. Are you a troll by any chance? Or a plant from the NSA, an asset of theirs? Put here to keep an eye on things and direct the discussion towards approved policies?

Species: Organisms that find it difficult or impossible to be cross fertile under natural conditions.
Sub-species: Varieties of the same species who can hybridize, but are reluctant to have sexual association/mate.

Sub-species are biologically evident when we examine their genetic distance apart:
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.word ... ations.pdf

https://d3i71xaburhd42.cloudfront.net/3 ... ble2-1.png


As they say; "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." i.e: Note how other animals are liberally given sub-species names (Number of recognized extant subspecies) , but because of prejudice humans are exempt even though they have more genetic distance, and some human populations may be considered to be separate SPECIES, such as me & my spouse. One reason why there are so many fertility clinics...but you hadn't thought of that, eh?

The above table is the END of this debate. No one has reason to dispute it. Any objection is a fart in the wind. PERIOD!

Hey Galaxian. You keep slicing off the direct question in your quotes. One can only presume that you cannot meet the challenge of demonstrating the factor or factors that distinguish one race from another such that everyone belongs one particular race group and is necessarily excluded from every other.

[Joe]

Some pursue truth, others verisimilitude.

[Svartalf]

lol; that reminds me of a ratskep thread where a god botherer defends the thesis that our world might not be reality bu actually a simulation

[L'Emmerdeur]

Note Galaxian's bait and switch, diverting attention from his failure to support his categorical statement that races exist by disputing the "ancient & multiple migrations of archaic hominins". Supposition regarding the latter does not support or demonstrate the former.

I don't know why you come to this forum, Brian. Do you actually learn anything from it? Do you pay attention to the replies given?

Going by the official DEFINITION of race/subspecies, Galaxian has nailed your feet to the floor. Here it is again. I won't bother translating the bleedin' obvious for you...since you're not interested anyway. Are you a troll by any chance? Or a plant from the NSA, an asset of theirs? Put here to keep an eye on things and direct the discussion towards approved policies?

Species: Organisms that find it difficult or impossible to be cross fertile under natural conditions.
Sub-species: Varieties of the same species who can hybridize, but are reluctant to have sexual association/mate.

Sub-species are biologically evident when we examine their genetic distance apart:
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.word ... ations.pdf

https://d3i71xaburhd42.cloudfront.net/3 ... ble2-1.png


As they say; "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." i.e: Note how other animals are liberally given sub-species names (Number of recognized extant subspecies) , but because of prejudice humans are exempt even though they have more genetic distance, and some human populations may be considered to be separate SPECIES, such as me & my spouse. One reason why there are so many fertility clinics...but you hadn't thought of that, eh?

The above table is the END of this debate. No one has reason to dispute it. Any objection is a fart in the wind. PERIOD!

Woodley's error so generously illustrated above is pointed out in Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture:

Woodley ("Is Homo sapiens Polytypic?") also makes the error of equating a species's overall heterozygosity with the number of subspecies (races) that have traditionally been assigned to the species. Thus, he finds it contradictory that chimpanzees have an average heterozygosity of 0.63--0.73 and bonobos of 0.48 and each has four subspecies named, while anatomically modern humans have greater heterozygosity at 0.776 but only one subspecies named. The problem with this analysis is that the process of speciation (by which geographic races would develop) does not proceed by overall heterozygosity, but rather by the differences between the heterozygosity of the subpopulations from the total heterozygosity of the species: FST = (HT - HS) / HT, where this FST is the average for multiple loci; HT is the average of the expected heterozygosity in the total population over loci, and HS is the average expected heterozygosity over subpopulations. Thus, geographic races form subpopulations and begin to diverge from each other in allele frequencies. A species might have high heterozygosity, but if it is evenly distributed across its populations, then it isn't undergoing genetic change that will form geographical races that might eventually form new species.

I can't claim to have found this source myself. There's a thorough dismantling of Woodley's paper here, if anybody is interested.

[L'Emmerdeur]

The above correlates with the frequently cited (in discussions with crusaders like Galaxian) fact that most genetic variation is found within human populations rather than between them. Though a simplified formulation dealing with a complex topic, it remains accurate.

The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.

[source]

Damn, I neglected to find a YouTube video that would settle this. Ah well.

[rainbow]

The above table is the END of this debate. No one has reason to dispute it. Any objection is a fart in the wind. PERIOD!

Right.

The table states that there is in humanity just the one extant sub-species, to which YOU object.

Hoist by your own petard:


Chortle