Quote:


why?

what's so antiquated/out of date about:

Each race has developed in a unique geographic location. Uniqueness does not imply non-shared environmental variables with the geographic location of other races.
Each race has a unique natural history.
Members of a race share a set of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters. Phylogeny refers to evolutionary relationships; the more recent the last common ancestral population, the closer two populations are phylogenetically. The phenotype refers to physical appearance, behaviors and other manifestations of gene expression.
There is recognizable phylogenetic partitioning between the races.
Evidence for phylogenetic distinction must normally come from the concordant distributions of multiple, independent genetically-based traits.

seems pretty common sense to  me.

Quote:


Quote:


a.k.a - however the bugger you define (or define out) whatever a 'race' is, socially identified populations, given existent genetic differences, can differ on traits for genetic reasons. even arthur jensen  did not bother with a sturdy defense of the concept of 'race' because he knew this to be so.

JC Denton wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 6:13pm:


So your answer’s "no", right?

I can’t tell. Cunning.

JC Denton wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 6:10pm:


Have you heard of the Blood Type Diet? Or the "Eat Right For Your Type" diet?

A guy called Peter D’Amano claims the blood types come from different stages of evolution. A is agrarian, B nomadic, O or AB hunter-gatherer. He says a lot of Jews and Asians are type B - I forget the rest. There’s a slightly racial component to it, but on the whole it tells you what food is best for your blood type. He’s a naturopath who took the system from his father.

It sounds very logical and reasonable, and a lot of people are obsessed by it. The books sell well. There are a lot of "miracle" stories about people going onto the diet and curing their incurable diseases. You know, the doctors were hopeless, but this diet - cured!

The problem is, there’s absolutely no evidence for any of it. It’s a grand, all-encompassing theory, but there’s no substance to it. I went on the diet once. I didn’t feel any difference, so I found his site and posted on the forums. I asked.polite questions about proof and was howled down by the converts. Peter D’Amano came on and said to be nice - good to have questions, etc. He posted a couple of articles I couldn’t really understand.Actually, one of them actually seemed to contradict his theory - I didn’t get a reply when I asked about this. Maybe I just didn’t get it.

Anyway, I checked up on the other article, and the theory was just that - unproven. The whole evolutionary biology thing? Not mentioned anywhere else. The foods that work well for certain blood types? Trial and error by Peter D’Amano’s dad - what Peter D’Amano called "clinical experience".

And that’s all there waa. I gave up the diet and didn’t look back. Another "best-selling" health fad debunked by Korporal Karnal.

Theories are fine, but they need to have some weight behind them. For me, "clinical experience" doesn’t cut it. Honky’s dog pictures are nice, but they don’t tell you anything.

Except the dog with the glasses and fancy scarf - he’s telling me he’s writing Honky’s posts.

No wonder they’re all about dog breeding. It’s internet porn.

that blood type thing doesnt sound common sense at all. sounds frankly weird/crank-witted. the definition i gave there is of subspecies. it you need to have a working definition of such a thing because policies are made all the time that regard preserving subspecies/natural habitats of endangered subspecies so they dont die out. human 'races' more or less tract those criteria fairly decently.

All five groupings have historically differentiated in unique geographic locations.
All five groupings have unique natural histories.
The vast majority of individuals within any of these groupings can be easily distinguished from the vast majority of individuals in other groupings by a) a visual examination of overall physical appearance; b) multiple, say 21-24, craniofacial inter-landmark distances;3) c) 20 discrete cranial traits,4) etc. This is because members of a race share a set of phenotypic characters consistent with their evolutionary history.
There is recognizable phylogenetic partitioning between the five groupings in the form of overall physical appearance and also neutral genetic markers.5)
Concordant evidence for the classification of these five groupings as separate subspecies/races comes from genetic studies involving a) 993 microsatellite markers,6) b) 79 autosomal RFLPs,7) c) 8 Alu insertions,8) d) 40 biallelic slow-evolving insertion-deletions,9) etc.

seriously just trust your lying eyes. its one thing tos ay human beings have diverged, its another to say that human groups differ on average in iq, propensity in criminality, w/e.

Big Donger wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 6:02pm:


I was just trying to keep it simple for you novices.

... wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 2:08pm:


Dog breeds can interbreed.  The physical characteristics of different dog breeds are the result more of selective breeding than anything else and are a consequence of preference or prejudice if you like than anything else.  Essentially all dogs, no matter what their breed are still dogs.  Same for humans, no matter what their "race", they are still humans, all sharing the same characteristics.  Where they differ, it is in physical aspects which are superficial, except to racists whom seem to place inordinate, social meaning on them.

I am unsure why you continue to be unable to grasp these simple facts.

Brian Ross wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 9:25pm:


Don’t tell him that. You’ll have him humping my leg again.

I guess he thinks it’s a sub-species.