Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by BusaDave9

  1. That reminds me of a cartoon I saw years ago. It was 2 astronauts standing on another planet looking at their own shadow. But the shadow was only their skeleton. One of the astronauts says "I don't like the looks of that." I wish I could find that on the internet. It would be much better than me describing it.
  2. Yes, we can close the thread. you and others have made some good points but then comes a rebuttable that has nothing to do with my position. That was happening a lot. Then I'm thinking if you don't know my position who are you arguing against? A straw man you've propped up?
  3. To point out that race is real as it pertains to humans and can be used determine where the decedents of some humans have come from. Why would I ever want to talk about race in that way? The same reason science likes to find out the origin of anything. I can say that Junco came from Oregon. Or a geologist can say that rock was formed in a shallow sea. Or an astronomer might say our solar system was formed after a very large star exploded. Science is all about asking and answering these types of questions but when we start talking about humans everyone asks "why would you want to ask
  4. That was stated in my very first post. Almost every post I make I repeat that the differences in human races are superficial and then people still say: Then strange says: I said no and explained my reasoning but I'm not going to repeat myself again. Then Strange asks the same question again except for red hair: Twice I explained that: but I'm going to scream if one more person says I've addressed genetic diversity and superficial differences many times. Since the differences in human races are superficial there isn't much genetic
  5. I refuse to respond to any of your posts until you reread this thread. Be careful to understand my posts before you reply. Please start with my very first post. I am tired of repeatedly posting the same thing over and and over again just to have people accuse me of saying things I have never said. You see the title says someone is asking if there "are different human races". From that you have a preconceived notion of what I have to say. Anyone that thinks human races are different is a racist. Racists think they know the races. Racists will overgeneralize with few statistics. They will
  6. Me? Me specifically? Examples please. I think you are generally referring to people that say there are human races. Now you are being ridiculous. Many of these comments are said in relation to human races. Don't post anything that you would not also say about bird races or races of any other animal. I think the term race should be used for humans the same as any other animal. Looking through almost any bird guide book there are pictures and explanations of different races. Races are very important to ornithology. But that does not mean races are clear cut and definitive. That's tru
  7. Yes, the races are superficial differences in appearance. That's what I've been saying all along. This is why geneticist can't use genetic diversity to show the different races. To shorten what has been quoted at least twice in this thread: So genetics can't define the races easily. Why? Because the differences in the races are superficial differences in appearance.
  8. There is far more genetic variation between species than between races. I could not find anything on the Wikipedia page to contradict that. Actually you (Strange) an I have both posted links showing that there is very little genetic variation within races. DNA testing has shown that my ancestors have come from Ireland, France and Scandinavia. Looking at the link you posted Ten Oz, they say: Although the test did mention countries those countries did not exist back then. I guess that's what they meant by "homelands rather than their country or origin itself". I am an African Am
  9. I think the best proof of a round Earth to a layman is the fact that the angular height of the north star is your geographical latitude. Do a little traveling and look at the night sky and you can prove to yourself that the Earth is round. The angle of the north star in relation to the "flat" ground is different for people that are further north. I can't imagine how a flat earther would try to explain gravity. I'd like to hear his ideas out of curiosity but I wonder if he'll be back.
  10. No I do not have the data. The ornithologists collect the data for us. What my point was is that IF there was more genetic variation they would call the bird the Oregon Junco species not a race. Species need to be different genetically. Races are so similar that you can't point to their genes and say "here's the difference that says they are different races". (races are similar. Species are different) Now this brings us back to the discussion of "rigorous definitions". There is no rigorous definition of race that biologist can point to. This is what was discussed in the web pages you had li
  11. This is not true. I have old and new bird guide books. These are full of species and races. Ornithologist are constantly redefining bird races and species. With new DNA evidence they are constantly saying things like "we used to think these were separate species. Now we know they are only difference races within the species." They freely use the term "race" for birds and other animals but not for humans any more. Can anyone provide an example similar to this: A race has been identified in the animal world. Based on color or other superficial traits biologist can say this race comes f
  12. Strange, You have some good points. I'd like to expand on "rigorous definitions". If an ornithologist were to say they found a new bird species. It would have to pass the rigorous definitions of a species. With modern science this would be easy to compare this bird with other birds genetically. This "new" species must be genetically different. How different? (species can interbreed between different species. As noted Neandertals have bred with Homo Sapiens.) If there isn't much genetic variation they can't be considered separate species. Within a species there is variation. Some people ha
  13. No. Your example is trying to split hairs. When talking about races I have brought up the fact that it can be hard to distinguish between similar races. This is especially since we can so easily travel the world. I don't want to get into details about very similar people. In asking if there are human races I would rather take two extremes: two people whos ancestors were from different parts of the world and look much different. By taking extreme differences I want to point out that there are more than one race. Anyone can confuse the issue by pointing out two people that arguably the same ra
  14. I have read that there simply isn't enough genetic variation within humans to designate separate races. Genetic variation is definitely necessary to designate separate species but it seems to me that if a superficial trait such as color can be used to explain variations within a species at different geographical locations. These variations can be used to specify races within the animal world but if we are talking about humans it is no longer acceptable to refer to them as separate races. With advancements in genetics we have decided that birds that previously were considered separate speci
  15. No there are many people with similar traits that are not from the same race. Also it is now very easy to travel the whole world. Races are mixing. It's getting harder and harder to tell the races apart. There are people of African decent that have blue eyes. By pointing out the rare exceptions does not mean there are no human races. Genetics has advanced to the point that anyone can get their DNA analyzed. Take your example of ginger hair and blue eyes. It is extremely unlikely that DNA tests would say such a person is from central Africa. Would such testing say that no one in that
  16. It is becoming more common for people, even scientist to say there are no human races, that we are all of the same race. I think even scientists can be ideological. I say there most definitely are separate races. This is an extremely controversial topic. I say the differences in the races are superficial, visual differences such as skin color, hair, eyes etc. PLEASE NO REPLIES that say there are any more differences between the races besides these superficial differences. This thread will probably be closed by one person making one remark that offends a moderator. Please think before post
  17. So we don't get new species from evolution? Then how do they come about? Please clarify. I think you meant to say there can be evolution without producing a whole new species. But you wanted to word that in the most condescending way you could possibly come up with. Can't we tone this discussion down and do without the personal attacks?
  18. Thanks Arete. You have provided lots of information. Framingham heart study does show evolution is still taking place for humans. When I realize 80% of the deer and other wild animals do not make it to the age to bear young I see survival of the fittest being a strong force directing evolution toward traits that are better suited for survival. I still don't understand how we could be evolving as fast as the other animals that fight for survival each day but I will drop the topic.
  19. I don't think anyone is misunderstanding fitness as it applies to evolution. We know we are talking about genetics not physical fitness that can improve with exercise. no one is saying humans have stopped evolving but I believe wild animals for which survival is a daily battle, are evolving at a faster rate than humans. For evolution to take place there must first be variations in the gene pool. These variations may be due to gene drift or mutations. Due to mutations we may have people with longer fingers than other people. These variations are not yet evolution toward a new spec
  20. Yes, defining life is the difficult task. Scientist can’t ignore the topic. They need to define life and when it begins. There is a big push for “Personhood” laws. Religious groups are saying that human life begins at conception and therefore should be protected the same as a child’s life. They say science dictates that life begins at conception. I say it’s not so easy to define. If I were to give the definition of a human life as when the fetus has all the genes necessary. Then the thread would end with someone saying “by that definition life begins at conception”. The problem is these
  21. What an argumentative bunch? I'm not trying to make a point. I'm trying to ask opinions. True I didn't have an option worded exactly as you would have worded it. Once again I am not asking for anyone to vote for a single point of time. Do you think the egg suddenly becomes a human life at conception? If not don't vote for #1. Do you think the fetus suddenly becomes a human life at birth? If not don't vote for #2. I thought the 3rd option was vague enough and encompassed enough time. Do any of you really think it is not a human life at the time of birth or are you guys being argumen
  22. To answer that. I do not believe it is scientifically reasonable to say that at the time of conception a fertilized egg is suddenly a human life. Also I do not believe it is scientifically reasonable to say that a fetus suddenly becomes a human life at the time of birth. So in making the thread, I wanted to ask people if they had the same believe as me. I created a poll that not only included my view, but also include what I think are the other 2 most common views of when life begins. In all honesty I don't think many people think it suddenly becomes a human life at the moment of birth bu
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.