PC Debate: Your preferred term?

[billydkid]

Oh please

Let's spend the rest of our existence tippytoeing hysterically around such issues as what do we call each other. Good Christ, do I really have to listen to all of this stuff for the rest of my life? I've listened to it since 1965 and I'm sick of it. People need to get a friggin grip.

I consider myself self a honky and prefer the term trailer trash.

 

[DanishDynamite]

DD and Rik might find this article relevant.

Interesting. Thanks, aero.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Re: Oh please

Let's spend the rest of our existence tippytoeing hysterically around such issues as what do we call each other. Good Christ, do I really have to listen to all of this stuff for the rest of my life? I've listened to it since 1965 and I'm sick of it. People need to get a friggin grip.

I consider myself self a honky and prefer the term trailer trash.

I'll likewise consider myself a honky, although calling myself trailer-trash isn't currently (or ever) true. To me, trailer-trash is connected to a certain (low) level of standard of living.

In any case, feelings on what to call each other or economic status have nothing to do with the topic me and RandFan are currently discussing.

 

[varwoche]

And not evidence of Mendelev's thoughts, but on how soon existent genes for skin color would manifest a black skin when the ínhabitants just interbreed amon themselves in a sunny environment.

As has been previously stated, the Dutch have been in South Africa since the 1700's.

If there is a black, "genetically pure" Afrikaner then a) hail to Lamarck, and b) I will have to re-evaluate my (lay) understanding of science across the board because I will have stepped through the looking glass.

 

[RandFan]

RandFan:Any physical change which is "transmitted" to the next generation, and is not part of the parents' DNA, is due to a mutation. It makes no difference how much the parents have adapted.

My point is that it IS part of the parents DNA.

Recessive genes.

A much better answer would be heritable variation. I don't think you would have gotten points for that one on a test but I am not a professor.

I think I'm beginning to understand what you are trying to say. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are saying that the potential for offspring having different characteristics from their parents already exists, even without mutations.

Thank you yes.

In that case, I agree. The problem, of course, is that the possible differences are minute and of no relevance when discussing races.

"What we got here is failure to communicate." Your statement makes an assumption that I don't necessarily agree with depending on your use of the word race. This happens to be the subject of the discussion.

1.) I don't accept that there is a biological basis for race. Do you mean "when discussing" different groups of people with significantly different characteristics such as skin color?

2.) Minute between generations but those changes add up over generations (again, see Mendelian Genetics).

I think that this is where you are making a mistake. You assume that variations can extend only so far. Yet this is demonstrably not true.

Lots of stuff. Which one are you thinking of?

That genetic variation can give rise to extreme differences in traits if selective breeding is employed.

Indirectly, I would say yes.

Why not directly? Every site that discusses Mendelian Genetics that I can find also discusses Skin Color (human), in detail. All of the data about genes, alleles as they relate to skin color I got from such sites. I can't see how it can be anything but direct.

I don't recall him saying anything on this matter. Is it important?

Specifically his experiments demonstrate that dramatic shifts in attributes are possible with-in few generations. That is IF there is large numbers of offspring.

Evidence, please!

And not evidence of Mendelev's thoughts, but on how soon existent genes for skin color would manifest a black skin when the ínhabitants just interbreed amon themselves in a sunny environment.

After hours of research I simply don't have proof that skin color can change within 6 generations based on changes in environment. I have provided lots of evidence that humans, particularly who are nor real dark or real light are capable of spawning offspring with different skin color based solely on heritable variation.

Danish
You claimed that:

RandFan
...., if natives of Scandinavia were moved to certain parts of Africa and reproduced and their offspring in turn reproduced they would eventfully take on the characteristics of native Africans. I think 6 generations is necessary.

Let's be clear here (not to mention fair). There are two claims.

1. if natives of Scandinavia were moved to certain parts of Africa and reproduced and their offspring in turn reproduced they would eventfully take on the characteristics of native Africans.
   
2. I think 6 generations is necessary.[/list=1]
   
   

   Kindly show that this ridiculous assertion has any merit.

   Depends on what you mean by "this ridiculous assertion? As to the 6 generations I said "I think". I will withdraw that. I can't find anything definitive. As to the first assertion there is little question. Everything that I can find on the subject supports the idea that humans can adapt to different environments through natural selection favoring some heritable traits over another. I see no reason at all to call such data and conclusions ridiculous
   
   

   No I don't. I simply asked why skin color wouldn't be sufficient to categorize a sub-species.

   So, at this point you don't have an opinion if skin color is sufficient or is it that you are not sure?
   
   

   No I don't. I claimed that the seperation of a species into different sub-species would require 1000's of generations.

   Could you support this? Of course you need to define sub-species. I don't think we even have that established as yet.
   
   

   Cool. Now please show your claim that this happened in 6 generations.

   See above.
   
   Thanks.