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.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
The question is how much those alleles really mean in the overall scheme of things.
originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
The question is how much those alleles really mean in the overall scheme of things.
There's an easy answer to that.
Sweet F*** All.
That's why it's important to understand.
originally posted by: Spider879
a reply to: burgerbuddy
How about sickle cell and booze intolerance?
Sickle cell is also found in southern Europe and booze intolerance a bunch of folks from desperate parts of the globe are booze intolerant.
If this is the case would you agree that denying differences which exist is a bad way to confront the race problem?
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: Spider879
a reply to: burgerbuddy
How about sickle cell and booze intolerance?
Sickle cell is also found in southern Europe and booze intolerance a bunch of folks from desperate parts of the globe are booze intolerant.
Sickle cell would be something it would make sense to find in people who live wherever malaria is very present since one copy of the gene is beneficial for survival as it makes you malaria resistant. It's when you have two that the problem arises.
It is less important now that there are effective malaria treatments, but that doesn't remove the genetic legacy.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
You are the one who just got done saying it doesn't mean anything.
If race is just superficial and the real division lies in culture, then I fail to see why it matters what color your skin is vis a vis mine, and I fail to see why I should tell my child it is vitally important unlike noticing different hair and eye colors.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
If this is the case would you agree that denying differences which exist is a bad way to confront the race problem?
No one is denying differences. Again, what I’m denying is the failed taxonomy.
originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
If this is the case would you agree that denying differences which exist is a bad way to confront the race problem?
No one is denying differences. Again, what I’m denying is the failed taxonomy.
Doesn't that link show that it's not a failed taxonomy and that opposed to what you have been saying race does provably exist with the evidence being allele frequencies.
originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
I'm saying that it's provably irrelevant.
But it can only be provably irrelevant if you accept that race actually does exist.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
If you examine the facts and realize that race doesn't exist, then the entire notion is laid bare as the absurdity it is.