Science: No Such Thing as Race!

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Jews didnt hate anyone. those were directed by God for them to remove. Unless you got first hand info on their hatred you cant say it as fact either.

Later on they were told to stop. If it was out of hatred they would not had done so.

The Liberty incident was debunked By zaphod before in another thread on that incident if i remember. You have not provided proof of this COnspiracy yet to prove your points you made.

You havent proven anything you spouted yet to be honest.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

There are biological differences in bone structures, etc. How do you think they can tell race by the skull and other things, when a bones are found?

Science has a test for gender too ...So much for the SJW wanting their Zees and Zers .

Wrong. they have a test for SEX. your actual BODY PARTS. Gender is not able to be touched.

originally posted by: yuppa
Jews didnt hate anyone. those were directed by God for them to remove. Unless you got first hand info on their hatred you cant say it as fact either.

I'm sure it's a distinction without a difference to the people who were slaughtered. "We don't hate you, but our God says you gotta go, so... sorry!"

Just like the Christians who burned people at the stake were sure they were sending those hopeless sinners to meet face-to-face with God so they'd be taught the appropriate lesson.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: yuppa
Jews didnt hate anyone. those were directed by God for them to remove. Unless you got first hand info on their hatred you cant say it as fact either.

I'm sure it's a distinction without a difference to the people who were slaughtered. "We don't hate you, but our God says you gotta go, so... sorry!"

Just like the Christians who burned people at the stake were sure they were sending those hopeless sinners to meet face-to-face with God so they'd be taught the appropriate lesson.

Those werent christians. they were Apostates/and blasphemers who killed people instead of letting God judge them in his own time. Hypocrites if you will.

That was AFTER the events in th emiddle east and God had created a new covenant for the gentiles/non hebrews. The ones burning people at the stake were following th eOT laws,but they were not Hebrews so it did not apply to them. OT applies to hebrews specifically. it even states it in the OT.

Of course th ecatholic church twisted this and wanted to use the OT because it was easy to control people with that one than the NT.

originally posted by: StallionDuck
Science says that our idea of Race is total BS...

Your source days that skin color isn't correlated well with race, but skin color was never my idea of race as I can easily tell the difference between a dark-skinned person of African descent versus a dark skinned person from India, due to other features. The skin color alone doesn't tell me much of anything so I agree with the science saying that. Here is what the science says when it's not focusing on irrelevant things like skin color:

Ancestry informative markers for fine-scale individual assignment to worldwide populations

Abstract

Background and aims The analysis of large-scale genetic data from thousands of individuals has revealed the fact that subtle population genetic structure can be detected at levels that were previously unimaginable. Using the Human Genome Diversity Panel as reference (51 populations - 650,000 SNPs), this works describes a systematic evaluation of the resolution that can be achieved for the inference of genetic ancestry, even when small panels of genetic markers are used.

Methods and results A comprehensive investigation of human population structure around the world is undertaken by leveraging the power of Principal Components Analysis (PCA). The problem is dissected into hierarchical steps and a decision tree for the prediction of individual ancestry is proposed. A complete leave-one-out validation experiment demonstrates that, using all available SNPs, assignment of individuals to their self-reported populations of origin is essentially perfect. Ancestry informative genetic markers are selected using two different metrics (In and correlation with PCA scores). A thorough cross-validation experiment indicates that, in most cases here, the number of SNPs needed for ancestry inference can be successfully reduced to less than 0.1% of the original 650,000 while retaining close to 100% accuracy. This reduction can be achieved using a novel clustering-based redundancy removal algorithm that is also introduced here. Finally, the applicability of our suggested SNP panels is tested on HapMap Phase 3 populations.

Conclusion The proposed methods and ancestry informative marker panels, in combination with the increasingly more comprehensive databases of human genetic variation, open new horizons in a variety of fields, ranging from the study of human evolution and population history, to medical genetics and forensics.

Anyway I'd love to see the day when I can just hire the most qualified candidate irrespective of the color of their skin which I really don't care about at all, without being pressured by the human resources department to fulfill the affirmative action goals which apparently do care about either skin color or what race the job applicant identifies with.

But I think you should read the article I linked if you want to know what science can really tell from genetics, which doesn't seem to agree with the claims in your OP and I'm not sure you understand what your own source is really saying.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I disagree with the notion it's simply due to a sense of superior or inferior. That is a tenet of Marxism and historically unsupportable. While denigrating your enemy or target population is a common tactic, rarely is it the motivation behind aggression in the first place.

Competition for someone else's wealth, resources, land, etc. always drives the train. A good examples is the Forth Crusade.

Many claim this was a clash of religions but that ignores the facts. It may have been sold as a war of reclaiming parts of the Holy Land but follow the money? Venice wanted Constantinople out of the picture. It was an economic rivalry.

How many "clashes" of religion/culture/race(if we assume it exists)/etc. follow this same formula?

So the problem is that you can't properly define what the different races are? But that alone doesn't invalidate the whole concept. Sometimes it's hard to draw lines between different languages too, but most would still admit that they exist.

Do you guys believe different races of dogs exist? Or should it be called breed, or subspecies instead? In humans ethnicity can be used as a euphemism, but that implies a common culture too.

So the problem is that you can't properly define what the different races are? But that alone doesn't invalidate the whole concept. Sometimes it's hard to draw lines between different languages too, but most would still admit that they exist.

Do you guys believe different races of dogs exist? Or should it be called breed, or subspecies instead? In humans ethnicity can be used as a euphemism, but that implies a common culture too.

All this talk of *white supremacy* when the majority of them spend much

of their leisure time vying on who can achieve the deeper tan/colour.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Your source days that skin color isn't correlated well with race, but skin color was never my idea of race as I can easily tell the difference between a dark-skinned person of African descent versus a dark skinned person from India, due to other features. The skin color alone doesn't tell me much of anything so I agree with the science saying that. Here is what the science says when it's not focusing on irrelevant things like skin color:

My mother being the progeny of one of those much maligned 'colonist' families

was in hospital at the age of 93 years. On being questioned by the consultant,

he asked her where she was from, and having lived in England for the past 60 yrs

she said here, ( I knew what he was meaning ... the subtlety that can only be

recognised by someone with knowledge of race differences).


So although not obvious to the naked eye ..... Maybe it must exist?

a reply to: StallionDuck

Since race isn't a scientific term this is actually less meaningful than science telling me there's no such thing as yummy...

It's stupid

And fwiw real scientists who do real science and detest the politicization and monetization of real science much less the pseudosciences this type of crap comes out of call these people tools and jackasses for a very good reason.

Real science and real scientists learned a hundred plus years ago to stay the hell out of this stuff!

Unfortunately for humanity they got drug back in 30 years later and things have quite literally been on an increasingly fast downward slide ever since!

originally posted by: roguetechie
a reply to: StallionDuck

Since race isn't a scientific term this is actually less meaningful than science telling me there's no such thing as yummy...

It's stupid

And fwiw real scientists who do real science and detest the politicization and monetization of real science much less the pseudosciences this type of crap comes out of call these people tools and jackasses for a very good reason.

Real science and real scientists learned a hundred plus years ago to stay the hell out of this stuff!

Unfortunately for humanity they got drug back in 30 years later and things have quite literally been on an increasingly fast downward slide ever since!

There was a gentics study done in th epast older than this one that says we are of th esame"race" and that is homo sapiens. Skin tone and outer differences are a result of where you live at or your ancestors lived at and adapted to that condition. Scientist who do genetic work and geneaology and other fields are just as credible as those who build nuclear bombs.

Scientifically there is one race. but from societies standpoint its a man made seperator due to outward appeareances.
Its a social construct,and its still used by freaking idiots to divide us from each other and control us more.
And that study... im not going to repost it again. 25 times is enough.

a reply to: Cutepants

A "race" is a group of beings who have the same DNA and make up basically. At base HUmanity is all the same at th ebase DNA and construction. Different conditions created differences in looks and attributes but still not seperate races.

And no there arent different subspecies of humans or species. those would include in ability to mate with some humans,but all humans can mate together. We are in a class of our own.

a reply to: yuppa

Whatever ...I suppose the Fasces in your Congress aren't real either. Maybe Zaph or you can correct the wiki article and pay back the Israelis that compensated the US servicemen over the Liberty

a reply to: yuppa

Those werent christians. they were Apostates/and blasphemers who killed people instead of letting God judge them in his own time. Hypocrites if you will.

So all the OT is fake news? It wasnt Israelites killing people it was God....LOL...I seem to recall George W Bush saying it was also Gods will to attack Iraq...LOL

a reply to: yuppa



According to the scientific definition members of different subspecies can interbreed, that's the big difference between species and subspecies. I didn't say humanity had them, I don't know, it's a bit sketchy. But we used to have them, at least.

What do you mean, same at the base DNA and construction?

I get that it's dumb decide that one person belongs to the "black" race, another one to the "white" race, and so on. Italians could then be left out of the white category for example. And Nordic people could say only they are really white, and leave out the French, etc. Yes, it's a continuum, so black people and white people are actually exactly the same, only with different degrees of "the same".

I guess my gripe here is that the concept of race still has real world usefulness, even if it's only about gradients, or "clines", which is the scientific term. In the past people were even more limited by geography than they are today, so populations evolved in different directions. You can actually look at different characteristics and tell with a high degree of certainty where a persons ancestors lived. Even if you only look at outward differences, you can tell that the native populations of Japan, for example, is different from that of Greenland. It's like, an emergent property.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: yuppa

Those werent christians. they were Apostates/and blasphemers who killed people instead of letting God judge them in his own time. Hypocrites if you will.

So all the OT is fake news? It wasnt Israelites killing people it was God....LOL...I seem to recall George W Bush saying it was also Gods will to attack Iraq...LOL

Ummm I never said the Israelites didnt kill anyone. I also said It was in Gods name suppossedly,but it was a war most likely and wars used to be fought till th eother side was all dead.

What you are doing is taking something ADDRESSED TO THE PURITANS/Elglish settlers/catholic church and trying to turn it around on the Israelites. THEY are the APostates and blasphemers who KILLED PEOPLE AT THE STAKE and DROWNED THEM as witches.

Its low to try and cherry pick something like you did its dishonest and stupid.

GB was crazy btw.

a reply to: Cutepants

Ever seen a article and story of a black child being born to white parents? Neither parent cheated or was unfaithful to th eother. And there is a story of th eopposite going on too.

So SOMETIMES looks can be deceiving and b etotally wrong on their ethnic origins.

a reply to: ABNARTY

I disagree with the notion it's simply due to a sense of superior or inferior.

That was the 'rationale' given by the apologists for colonization when they went looking for an excuse to justify the apostasy of colonization and enslavement. That is where the modern concept of 'racism' comes from.

That is a tenet of Marxism

That is total rubbish. Marx said that racism was a direct result of Capitalism and its use of labor as a commodity enforcing the idea that groups had to distinguish themselves in that labor market. Whether he was right in that or wrong in that has nothing to do with what his personal thoughts were. He was a man of his time, steeped in the prejudices of his time, and his philosophy tried to break out of those prejudices.

and historically unsupportable.

How so?

a reply to: rnaa

So Marx never divided society up into social classes? Current have and have-nots? Those oppressed and such?

He never said class consciousness was a requirement for successful revolution?

Nothing about the working class seizing the state and using it to to suppress the hitherto ruling class?

And there is no way on Earth that oppression of one class by another could be construed or perceived as inferiors and superiors whether deserved or not?

He was a man of his time? So was every human on the planet. Ever. So what? We are talking about the individual versus the group. Wonder which side Marx fell on that argument?

Racism is a result of capitalism? That's rich since he himself was what we would call a racist today. In "On The Jewish Question" 1844 he writes:

"What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. … Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man—and turns them into commodities. … The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange. … The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general."

The original contention was about putting everybody into groups and playing those groups off each other. Race (a concept I do not believe in) is just another means of grouping in this case. This is classic Marxism. Unless you believe Marx was big on the individual and believed grouping people was abhorrent?