Brian Ross wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 11:00pm:



Question for the Professor Ross!

These 2 dogs could interbreed, right?





Brian Ross wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 11:00pm:



But they're the same species though, aren't they?

Brian Ross wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 11:00pm:



No, they're not.

Brian Ross wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 11:00pm:



I dunno...    I wouldn't want to take that poodle pig hunting.  I'm not sure it's characteristics would be equally suited to that particular task as the staffy.  What do you think?

Brian Ross wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 11:00pm:


I think the keyword here is allele. We have the same genes, but different alleles.

... wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 9:38am:


So why the continual disputation of the science then? 

Quote:


You do understand how averages are calculated?

Just as with your dog breeds, exactly 50% of humans in any given group will be below average intelligence, strength, etc., but the funny thing is, the other 50% will be above it.  So, suggesting that one particular "race" is less strong, less intelligence on the basis of their physical appearance (ie skin colour, shape of their eyes, size of their nose, etc.) is a falsehood and again, I'll point out, based more upon prejudice than science (and please don't trot out the bullshit "bell curve" thesis). 

Quote:


I have no ideology in this matter.  I am merely pointing out that "race" as a concept as used by racists, is a social issue and has no scientific basis.  You however, appear unable to accept that for some reason.   Again I ask, are you a racist?   

... wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 1:48pm:


Perhaps you would care to point out to us the individual genes which determine what "race" a person is and which prevent different "races" from interbreeding?

I look forward to you also finding the genes which determine one "race" is inferior to another in any meaningful way.

I have always talked about the social aspect of "race" and how it is something constructed not on any scientific basis but is actually a social construct created by racists on the basis of superficial physical aspects and their prejudices to justify their discriminations  based on the issue.   This is, afterall a forum devoted to social matters, not scientific ones.

I am unsure why you seem to perceive these matters in the way you have but it appears you have a comprehension problem.   

Brian Ross wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 1:57pm:


You can argue that race isn't important all you like,  I'd even agree with you to a large extent. 
But don't confuse that with saying there's no biological basis for it.   Hell even your own link said as much.  Remember this?

Quote:

Big Donger wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 2:23pm:


It's all the proof one could need. 

Big Donger wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 2:23pm:



It could easily be proven if anyone wanted to prove it.  How do I know?  Those wonderful pictures of chinks and africans, poodles and bull terriers. To claim there is no such thing as race is the same as claiming there are no different breeds of dog.  these guys would probably disagree - how does it feel to know dogs know more than you on this matter?



Quote:


tut tut. the absence of proof is not proof of absence.  You're even committing that basic fallacy now?!

... wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 2:31pm:


Maybe you should send them in to the Human Genome Project.

To summarize, their current evidence, after looking, is this: there is no known genetic cause for race. There is no known genetic difference between races. Humans, on the whole share almost identical genetic information. The bits we don’t share do not correspond to racial types.

This is the evidence of the Human Genome Project after more than a decade of looking and perhaps the biggest research grant in history. They are, without a doubt, the most credible source of knowledge on human DNA.

What they say is this: statistically, certain races are more likely to share some biological traits than others, but only on paper. Some races are more predisposed towards baldness, diabetes, immune diseases, etc, but this information is only statistical. The stats do not correspond to any particular genes that the Human Genome Project knows of.

And they have been looking. It’s their brief.

The Human Genome Project does not know whether these traits are related to diet, environment, genetics, or a combination of all three. And they’ve mapped out most of the human DNA sequence - don’t ask me how.

So yes, please send them your dog pictures, Honky. I’m sure they’ll look into them. Perhaps you could attach these to an email outlining your thoughts - most welcome.

... wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 2:38pm:


As far as I can tell, the only one arguing against genes for political reasons is you.

I would have thought, for example, that there would be an obvious skin pigmentation DNA sequence shared by all Africans, but there isn’t. I find that quite strange, given that they have found genes for albinism. Are albinos a race?

No. I’m not being ideological at all. Race does exist.

It’s just that no one can find any genes that correspond to it.

To put this into an argument you might relate to, do you think all those "white" Aboriginals have ancestral Aboriginal genes?

Alas, the evidence doesn’t help them out much either. You can’t get a blood test to claim Abstudy.

The evidence, therefore, points to race as a cultural, not biological category. Anything else you might point out is worthy of being examined and investigated - and, no doubt, praised - by the Human Genome Project. But it doesn’t prove a biological component for race.

Nice picture of a dog though - he looks clever.

Is he giving you arguments for your posts?