PC Debate: Your preferred term?

[Rob Lister]

The biologists decide.

What is their website where they voice their opinion?

Yes, I suppose the original question was of some relevance, but it seems to me that it was only of interest to Americans. I'm not American, and the original question is of almost no relevance to me. Hence this interesting detour.

Nor am I filipino but I ate a balut nonetheless (and against my better judgement) for the fifteenth time (at least). I like the crunchy-soft-tart-bitter mixture enough to forego reason. Sort of like having sex with fat chicks.

 

[RandFan]

Interesting links, RandFan. Unfortunately, they don't address my question.

The only one which comes even close is the one on redheads which says:

20,000 years ago is equal to 1000 generations.

You are not paying attention. Humans have had these charachterisitics for that many years. It only takes 6 generations for the charachteristic to show up when the environment changes. Go back and read them again.

Here, I will help you.

The human primate developed high melanin levels in the skin to prevent skin cancer while evolving in Africa. Moving to the Arctic changes the environment, but the genetic characteristic of a dark skin remains.

Do you understand what it is saying? Those who moved to the arctic did not mutate. They did not lose their ability to produce melanin or produce offspring that could produce enough melianin to protect themselves in sub saharan Africa.

And how long would it take.

6 generations!

 

[aerocontrols]

If you could trace your family back 30 generations, slightly more than 1,000 years, you'd find one billion ancestors

I really dislike this factoid. If I could trace my family back 30 generations, I suspect I would find something much more like a million ancestors or so, with 1 billion threads 'back' such that most of my ancestors showed up many more times than just one.

Anyway, back to your argument...

 

[RandFan]

I really dislike this factoid. If I could trace my family back 30 generations, I suspect I would find something much more like a million ancestors or so, with 1 billion threads 'back' such that most of my ancestors showed up many more times than just one.

Anyway, back to your argument...

I don't know how many there actually would be but there are 1 billion threads back. How do you arrive at a million. Just curious.

 

[Rob Lister]

Yes, I suppose the original question was of some relevance, but it seems to me that it was only of interest to Americans. I'm not American, and the original question is of almost no relevance to me. Hence this interesting detour.

You do realize (and I think you do) that this statement refutes, to some extent, THE assertion (yours, biologists, whatever) that race no longer exists? I didn't notice it until just now but, assuming your statement implies what I infer --- not to many blacks/otherraces in your country --- then race is at least distingishable to you, even if not to the 'official biologists' that officially determine such things.

Whoa! That balute is really getting to me. It even had hair! (down? prefeathers? something furry anyway)

 

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RandFan Wrong!

Go ahead, read it again. This is not opinion. It is fact. There are no sub-species.

Just read it. Your link is a RACE LITERACY QUIZ. Kindly explain the possible relevance.

{sigh} I have posted it 4 times. Can't you have the decency to just look at the link?

You know, I have posted this stuff before and you just ignore it. I thought better of this from your.

Read your link. Not impressed. Kindly explain the relevant bits. The bit you quoted is obviously of no relevance.

I have read your link. And I have addressed it. Something you have not done with mine.

You have addressed nothing. Kindly provide even the smallest of evidence that humans were not reasonably divided into races just 2 centuries ago. By "reasonable" I mean by today's standards.

Your link simply states that there are different view points why there are different view points. Hardly difinitive. My links explain why the notion of race is wrong.

Your links explain nothing at all.

According to the following site there is no such thing as race beyond a societel construct.

Could you point me to the relevant part? Thanks.

The site tells why there is no genetic basis for race. I quoted one of the paragraphs from a PBS movie and web site above.

Anything you have so far quoted explains nothing.

 

[DanishDynamite]

What is their website where they voice their opinion?

I don't know. Where is yours?

Nor am I filipino but I ate a balut nonetheless (and against my better judgement) for the fifteenth time (at least). I like the crunchy-soft-tart-bitter mixture enough to forego reason. Sort of like having sex with fat chicks.

You are sick.

A Balut can only be eaten while drunk. Case closed.

 

[DanishDynamite]

You are not paying attention. Humans have had these charachterisitics for that many years. It only takes 6 generations for the charachteristic to show up when the environment changes. Go back and read them again.

Read what?

The links you previously provided? They have nothing at all to say about 6 generations.

Do you understand what it is saying? Those who moved to the arctic did not mutate. They did not lose their ability to produce melanin or produce offspring that could produce enough melianin to protect themselves in sub saharan Africa.

I have no clue what you are mumbling about. Are you saying that people who moved to the Arctic did not mutate to have dark skin within 6 generations? In that case, I agree.

 

[DanishDynamite]

You do realize (and I think you do) that this statement refutes, to some extent, THE assertion (yours, biologists, whatever) that race no longer exists? I didn't notice it until just now but, assuming your statement implies what I infer --- not to many blacks/otherraces in your country --- then race is at least distingishable to you, even if not to the 'official biologists' that officially determine such things.

Not sure what you are saying.

Whoa! That balute is really getting to me. It even had hair! (down? prefeathers? something furry anyway)

A Balut will always get to you. Unless you are drunk at the time.

 

[RandFan]

Just read it. Your link is a RACE LITERACY QUIZ. Kindly explain the possible relevance.

{sigh} It is part of the PBS program to debunk the notion of race. The quote is also on the PBS site but I figured you wouldn't be able to find it. You proved me right when you asked me to tell you where it is.

Read your link. Not impressed. Kindly explain the relevant bits. The bit you quoted is obviously of no relevance.

I can't begin to express how disappointed I am. I really thought much more of this from you. Did you really read it? I'll bullet the points but I get a feeling that you are going to ignore them.

• The presumption that there are a number of different races within the human species implies that there is a different genetic code for these separate races.
  
• The degree to which the genetic makeup between individuals in different racial categories varies is 6%.
  
• Within any certain race there is the same degree of difference between individuals.
  
• The development of varying skin pigmentation is not an influential enough of a difference to divide the human species into races.
  
• Skin color is merely a reaction to a dangerous environment. The same instances have been documented in immunity to diseases. A people who are endangered by a virus develop a way to survive.
  
• It can also be argued that the geographical factors stated above are the same factors that have been responsible for the evolution of all species.
  
• Human beings started to expand out into the world about 25,000 years ago. This leaves little space for the evolution of separate species.

You have addressed nothing.

This is just gainsaying. You do not address my information you simply dismiss it.

• There are no traits, no characteristics, not even one gene that is present in all members of one so-called race and absent in another.
  
• The A, B, and O blood groups can be found in all the world's peoples (the percentage of Estonians and Papua New Guineans with A, B, and O blood are almost exactly identical).
  
• Skin color tends to correlate with the earth's geographic latitude not race; sub-Saharan Africans, the Dravidians and Tamils of southern Asia, and Melanesians from the Pacific all have very dark skin.

Kindly provide even the smallest of evidence that humans were not reasonably divided into races just 2 centuries ago.

What do you mean "reasonably divided into races"?

I don't think that those who did divide humans were unreasonable.

I think that the information they had was incomplete 2 centuries ago and they were simply wrong.

By "reasonable" I mean by today's standards.

Could you explain what today's standards are? Do you reject the findings or methodology of the human genome project?

Your links explain nothing at all.
Could you point me to the relevant part? Thanks.
Anything you have so far quoted explains nothing.

I'm really busy Danish. If you are joking I ask you to please stop. It's not funny. If you are not joking could you offer something more than gainsaying? Stating that my links prove nothing is not a valid form of argument. I have presented facts, premise, inference and conclusion. Could you have the decency to address those please?

 

[aerocontrols]

I don't know how many there actually would be but there are 1 billion threads back. How do you arrive at a million. Just curious.

Just guessing.

Thinking and reading a little more about it, 30 generations * 20 years per generation is 600 years. Most of my ancestors are Europeans. The population of Europe was about 60 million at the time. What percentage of those people are my ancestors?

I presume that following back my Cherokee and Blackfoot ancestry would yield far fewer ancestors...


I don't think 1 million is such a bad guess...

 

[RandFan]

Could you point me to the relevant part?

1. Go to the home page.
   
2. On the left is a menu. One of the choices is "what is race?" Click on it.
   
3. On the lower left, running along the bottom are 10 bullets numbered 1 - 10. Click on number 2.[/list=1]

 

[gnome]

I don't know how many there actually would be but there are 1 billion threads back. How do you arrive at a million. Just curious.

I think you need to check out a satirical essay called "The Population Implosion" ... very relevant here...

Can't find a copy on the internet, darn it.

 

[RandFan]

The links you previously provided? They have nothing at all to say about 6 generations.

Nothing at all? Really? Do you find this funny?

There spawn after 6 generations without out another black parent had no tolerance of sunlight (freckles) and hair that was useless in light attraction (red hair). This explains inense redheads that inhabit Ireland.

Please look at the 4th word. It is "6".

Please look at the 5th word. It is generations.

Now, put the two together and what do you have? That's right "6 generations"

What is the paragraph about? The adaptation of melanin due to changes in environment.

And what does the article say about this particular issue? It took 6 generations and environmental factors for the melanin in the hair of those who setled in and around Ireland to change so that red was a prominant color.

But according to you it doesn't say ANYTHING about 6 generations.

I have no clue what you are mumbling about. Are you saying that people who moved to the Arctic did not mutate to have dark skin within 6 generations? In that case, I agree.

No that is not what I said. Here we go.

• Humans migrated from Africa and eventually ended up in the arctic.
  
• At some point the skin of those living in the arctic produced less melanin and their skin appeared white.
  
• Why? Did they mutate? No, they simply adapted (see Charles Darwin). Those living in the arctic still had the ability to produce melanin they just stopped producing it or they produced very little of it.
  
• Their offspring could re-adapt in a short period of time if the environment changed.

And how long would it take for the decendants to adapt to changes in environment if say they moved to sub-Saharan Africa? Drum roll please, 6 generations!

 

[RandFan]

I think you need to check out a satirical essay called "The Population Implosion" ... very relevant here...

Can't find a copy on the internet, darn it.

I've read it. Since I am a typical Cliff Claven (sp?) I make a point of irritating my friends and family with it.

 

[RSLancastr]

Sort of like having sex with fat chicks.

Is gratuitous s**te like this necessary?

It amazes me that a person who would never say, for example, "It's like having sex with a ni**er" think that it is perfectly acceptable (and funny) to say crap like this.

 

[crimresearch]

Unfortunately there is more than one poster who thinks its OK, as long as they think it is OK.

 

[RandFan]

Could you point me to the relevant part?

Also,

• Click on Human Diversity
  
• Click on Explore Diversity

 

[WildCat]

It is not surprising that only in countries with "white" people as majority the colour does matter.

Whites in Zimbabwe would probably beg to differ.

As would those in the Indian caste system.

 

[RSLancastr]

Unfortunately there is more than one poster who thinks its OK, as long as they think it is OK.

Yes, and the silence of many of those who don't think it is okay is why it still happens.