It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The "Human Race" is Intellectually Dishonest

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   
"There is only one race, the human race."

This is something I've heard repeated by liberals over and over again on this site, and while I appreciate their efforts to unify the human species, the fact of the matter is that this notion simply isn't true.

Race isn't a "myth" or "divisive tactic", its simply a means of classification that sounds a lot better than "breed".

If there is only one human race, then there is only one breed of dog, one breed of cat, etc. A Doberman and a Bull Terrier most certainly can breed and produce fertile offspring, but those puppies are still half Doberman and half Bull Terrier.

So stop with the silliness please. All you're doing is making yourselves look ignorant, and ignorance is something we're supposed to deny here... not embrace.


edit on 8-8-2016 by Bone75 because: typo




posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

They know it. The same people who spout that also have no problem advocating for every special interest group and hyphenated group under the sun.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   


While some researchers sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive [12]or simplistic way,[18][page needed] and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[19][20] Other researchers contend that changes in the ways in which genetics is being practiced and promoted, as well as the "confusion of analytical domains in making assertions about race," are undermining the validity of the position that race is a social construct.[21]


en.m.wikipedia.org...

edit on 8/8/16 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

Well stated. It's rather difficult to argue with the crystal clear logic of your opening post, but some SJWs will try — in vain.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

Are we all equal in the eyes of God?

You see, scientifically speaking, we ARE one and it is niave to think differently.

We are more different CULTURALLY than any physical characteristics, but at the core we are the same species and sub-species, we are fundamentally and essentially human.

This isn't about SJW crap, this is just reality. Hide from it if you like but it ain't going away.


ETA:

Humanity has continued to evolve regionally the past 30,000 years and so in some respects there are differences that could be grouped regionally.

Racism and discrimination are wrong as a matter of principle, not of science. That said, it is hard to see anything in the new understanding of race that gives ammunition to racists. The reverse is the case. Exploration of the genome has shown that all humans, whatever their race, share the same set of genes. Each gene exists in a variety of alternative forms known as alleles, so one might suppose that races have distinguishing alleles, but even this is not the case. A few alleles have highly skewed distributions but these do not suffice to explain the difference between races. The difference between races seems to rest on the subtle matter of relative allele frequencies. The overwhelming verdict of the genome is to declare the basic unity of humankind.


This Time article does a great job of balancing "race" (differences) with the essential unity of the species.
Time article


edit on 8-8-2016 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-8-2016 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

Breeds are created by artificial selection, while races are a natural divergence.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Wait, I'm confused. Whether or not the term "race" is scientifically correct, liberals are well aware of how certain groups are treated, i.e., blacks - but when we bring that up, or when Obama says "Trayvon could have been my son" (meaning he was black) - conservatives go crazy on us and say we shouldn't bring up race at all cuz it just divides us. Conservatives are the ones saying we don't need labels.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

How about we just say this;

"Humankind is One, a Unity within the Diversity."

There. Is that better?



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Bone75


"There is only one race, the human race."

This isn't a race.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Bone75

How about we just say this;

"Humankind is One, a Unity within the Diversity."

There. Is that better?


Not really; it's an oxymoron. Either we are one or we are not.

It does not matter if we are one race if we persist in assigning divisions based on culture which might as well divide us as almost as surely as being a separate species would.

We are getting to the point where we are starting to treat cultural division as sacrosanct. A person who adopts the dress, mannerism, or even culinary practices of another culture these days is said to be practicing cultural appropriation and making a mockery of that culture and the persons who were brought up to it "authentically."

So no, there is no unity in diversity. Not really. Not the way it is being treated by SJWs.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

There are dis-unifying and reactionary voices from many places. It can be very annoying!!! I certainly agree with that.

I stand by the ideal of Unity in our Human Diversity as it is the most valid scientifically speaking, and it is a pathway through the mire of both SJW "cultural appropriation" and actual racism.

It's a long hard road for people to get through their anger and reactions and fears, which are part of the roots of "racial" and "cultural" divisiveness. I don't expect it to magically change anytime soon: after all, we're only human...



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   
I guess this explains the difference between Albert Einstein and Charles Manson.




posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

I think the way it should be thought as is this. The human is an species with distinctive diversity we discuss as Race/Breed.
edit on 8-8-2016 by Tindalos2013 because: nevermind.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Bone75

Breeds are created by artificial selection, while races are a natural divergence.


What? All breeds of dogs or cats let's say are created by artificial selection? Just no. Different breeds of dogs and cats developed independently on different continents.

It's perfectly ok to use the real word, breed, when applying the term to humans. To use race implies it's a competition, there's a finish line and there is one winner.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Yes, the different breeds of domestic dogs and cats we have today were developed through artificial selective breeding. It doesn't matter what continent you are talking about.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Yes, the different breeds of domestic dogs and cats we have today were developed through artificial selective breeding. It doesn't matter what continent you are talking about.


Genetics and evolution show us that dogs, cats, bears, wolves, etc, all stem from one ancestor, the Micas. If that is the case, then only one breed of dog should exist, otherwise, how did cross breeding occur artificially if there were no other breeds created naturally to cross with?

Cheers - Dave
edit on 8/8.2016 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

You are confusing "breed" with "species." The great Dane and the Chihuahua are two different breeds of dog, both artificially created through selective breeding, but they are both the exact same species - Canis lupus familiaris.

In fact, if you look at street dog populations in just about anywhere, after a few generations the dogs revert to mostly a common body type, shedding most of the more exotic, selectively bred characteristics of their house-bred cousins in favor of the traits best suited to survival on the streets.

What I am assuming is being talked about with this thread is that there being only one human "race" is more akin to saying there is only one human "species" - Homo sapiens, and you could choose to view each ethnicity as a "breed" or a local variant. I prefer local variant like you find in the cichlids of the African Rift Lakes where different collection points for the same species will yield sometimes wildly different colorations.
edit on 8-8-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Bone75

Breeds are created by artificial selection, while races are a natural divergence.


Could you explain the difference, keeping in mind that I'm half Caucasian and half Native American?



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Bone75

Breeds are created by artificial selection, while races are a natural divergence.


Could you explain the difference, keeping in mind that I'm half Caucasian and half Native American?


Simple.

Over time a population is isolated from another for one reason or another and a certain set of genes comes to predominate for whatever reason. In Africa, the theory goes that dark hair, skin and eyes favored survival in the harsh sun, but that may have changed.

Either way, individuals in an area grew more likely to favor that the expression of those genes. There was not enough time in the separation for the populations to diverge into actual separate species, only to look superficially different and likely in complex social creatures like humans to adopt very different cultures and ways of living.



Let me use this example: These three fish are all one species, Tropheus moorii out of Lake Tanganyika. They have however been collected from different spots in the lake: Illangi, Katoto, and Moliro (it's a red Moliro variant). Understand these fish are exactly the same fish. They only look different in color. Local populations are separated by vaguaries of geography and develop their different coloration over time.

Keep them together in the same tank, and they will interact as the same fish and even interbreed producing hybrids who are neither on variant or the other although they may favor one parent of the other.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75




Could you explain the difference, keeping in mind that I'm half Caucasian and half Native American?


I am also half caucasian, half first-nations. Not much of a race, is it?

Breeds of animals have been selected by humans for their traits, and bred in controlled ways. As a result of thousands of years of breeding of dogs, dogs have a huge variation without speciation.




top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join