If humans are a product of evolution...

[Senethro]

You shouldn’t use genetic distance or time of divergence to predict species number.

You can predict the existence of undiscovered fundamental particles, but most biology is descriptive, not predictive.

 

[Senethro]

A couple of asides:

Does anyone ever get disappointed when a supposed radical free thinker who is iconoclastic and dangerous to the politically correct culturally Marxist establishment puts forward his subversive new paradigm... and it looks a lot like 1950s or even 1850s racism? Some real independent and novel thought there champ.

Also - did anyone else see the useage of the like button as “dog whistle received” ? That’s kind of fun.

 

[Katie88]

You shouldn’t use genetic distance or time of divergence to predict species number.

You can predict the existence of undiscovered fundamental particles, but most biology is descriptive, not predictive.

Well, I'm not a scientist, so I can't really argue with that. One thing I found interesting about the article was the claim that, among scientists, opinion is divided on the biological reality of race, that there is considerable variation on this throughout the world, and that opinion in the west seems to shifting back toward the biological reality. The issue is controversial among scientists, yet the received wisdom among laypeople is that it's settled. I suppose it's rather like psychoanalysis, which today is treated with deep scepticism by people in the field but is deeply embedded in the popular consciousness.

As an aside, I've noticed how much clearer things have become since I started reading 'racism' as 'heresy' and 'racist' as 'heretic'.

 

[Oerdin]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...rica-startling-new-genetics-of-human-origins/

A very interesting article.

Well, I'm not a scientist, so I can't really argue with that. One thing I found interesting about the article was the claim that, among scientists, opinion is divided on the biological reality of race, that there is considerable variation on this throughout the world, and that opinion in the west seems to shifting back toward the biological reality. The issue is controversial among scientists, yet the received wisdom among laypeople is that it's settled. I suppose it's rather like psychoanalysis, which today is treated with deep scepticism by people in the field but is deeply embedded in the popular consciousness.

As an aside, I've noticed how much clearer things have become since I started reading 'racism' as 'heresy' and 'racist' as 'heretic'.

My degree isn't in biology or human genetics (its in geology) but it seems to mostly be social scientists pushing the race as a social construct theory while the hard sciences (what many call the real sciences) seems to back biological basis theory. My gut is the truth is some where in the middle with some social construct but also some biological basis. How much? More research is needed because the more we look the more we find.

My big beef with the "its all just in our imaginations" line is it ignores all the physical evidence and that is never a good policy. They do this mostly for political reasons and that also is never a good thing on science.

 

[Senethro]

Could we get some clear terminology here? There are two different claims possibly being made that aren't being properly distinguished. One is that "human 'races' exist" and the other is that "human 'races' that match the social constructs exist". They are distinctly different and I believe that Oerdin means one, while other posters mean the other.

Also lol at the idea that poor racists are being persecuted like Galileo was. Double lol at "controversy exists!". Where'd you pull that from? The Creationists playbook?

 

[uppi]

My degree isn't in biology or human genetics (its in geology) but it seems to mostly be social scientists pushing the race as a social construct theory while the hard sciences (what many call the real sciences) seems to back biological basis theory. My gut is the truth is some where in the middle with some social construct but also some biological basis. How much? More research is needed because the more we look the more we find.

Your gut feeling is wrong, though, it succumbed to a middle ground fallacy.

You have to understand that there are two concepts here. One is race as understood by racists. It encompasses the belief that you can tell the race of someone by looking at him and that membership of this race signifies certain attributes. There is no doubt that this is a social construct, because these classifications usually have little to no basis in biology.

The second concept is the difference between genetic groups. We could call this "biological race", but as I said, this is a bad term, because it invites people to confuse it with the social race (as you just did). As the article you linked demonstrates, we don't even have enough data, yet, for a comprehensive classification of human genetic groups. Even if we did, you could determine the genetic group (or the absence of membership to any genetic group) of an individual only by careful genetic analysis.

 

[Katie88]

Also lol at the idea that poor racists are being persecuted like Galileo was. Double lol at "controversy exists!". Where'd you pull that from? The Creationists playbook?

Some really top-drawer arguments there. Keep 'em coming.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...rica-startling-new-genetics-of-human-origins/

A very interesting article.

My degree isn't in biology or human genetics (its in geology) but it seems to mostly be social scientists pushing the race as a social construct theory while the hard sciences (what many call the real sciences) seems to back biological basis theory. My gut is the truth is some where in the middle with some social construct but also some biological basis. How much? More research is needed because the more we look the more we find.

My big beef with the "its all just in our imaginations" line is it ignores all the physical evidence and that is never a good policy. They do this mostly for political reasons and that also is never a good thing on science.

That was a really interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

I should say that my view is broadly in line with yours (though I certainly don't claim to be an expert; my degree is in history). Everything in society, including society itself, is a social construct from a certain point of view. So it really depends on what people mean by that. What I've seen a lot of in these sorts of debates is 'race is a social construct; therefore, [insert far-left theory]'. I suspect that the different views among scientists in different parts of the world have a lot to do with the prevailing political climate where they are.

In general, I find it interesting to think about human diversity, both in biological and socio-cultural terms. Unfortunately, when one starts to talk about these things, it seems to attract people who just want to scream and call other people names for taking a different view, which is a shame.

 

[civver_764]

I think the idea that you would have different populations separated from each other for tens of thousands of years, in different environments, and that there would be no significant genetic differences is pretty ridiculous.

 

[Senethro]

Anyone had a read round that blog Katie88 linked last page? Real piece of work.

http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/first-worldism/

Also hover over the Core Issues menu.

I'm reminded about Valessa's thread regarding moral cowardice and not owning up to the consequences of positions you hold.

 

[civver_764]

Ooohhhh scary beliefs! Guess you better cover your eyes and avoid considering the evidence presented.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Now if only there just was any evidence presented...

 

[Senethro]

Ooohhhh scary beliefs! Guess you better cover your eyes and avoid considering the evidence presented.

m8 you got a temp ban for cheering on the Charlottesville murderer, you might want to think about whether lending your support to anyone helps their cause.

Moderator Action: PDMA is not allowed on the forums. Please refrain from making this type of comment.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Katie88]

Anyone had a read round that blog Katie88 linked last page? Real piece of work.

http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/first-worldism/

Also hover over the Core Issues menu.

I'm reminded about Valessa's thread regarding moral cowardice and not owning up to the consequences of positions you hold.

I haven't read that particular piece. But your combination of sneering and lack of any arguments is deeply unimpressive.

 

[Senethro]

What argument would convince you to not be a racist? Like, whats the foundation on which your racism is built? Is it fear of destruction of European civlilzation or what?

 

[Katie88]

What argument would convince you to not be a racist?

Perhaps a similar one that could convince you to stop beating your wife.

Oh, I see your edit. Earlier, I presented some evidence that there is controversy in the scientific community regarding the biological reality of race, to which you responded with 'lol creationism'. Unimpressive, and you haven't improved. Address that before asking me questions in bad faith.

 

[Senethro]

Yah except i don't show up to threads with links to blogs about the benefits of domestic violence and its supposed evolution.

I mean, maybe you're young and naive and didn't read as far as the menu bar before linking. Maybe.

 

[Katie88]

Not an argument.

 

[Senethro]

I can't present an argument to someone who won't own their position.

Creationists and global warming denialists have created "controversy". So what? Controversy can have a sound foundation or it can be a bunch of noise. Do you want me to argue that the controversy doesn't exist, by whatever standard that can be done? Or to guess what positions you share with the nasty racist blog and allow you to step away from any you feel you can't defend?

 

[Katie88]

I can't present an argument

We've certainly established that much.

The article quotes several academic studies that demonstrate the controversy I referred to. Now you may disagree with them, of course, but it behoves you to explain why you believe the matter is settled among scientists and to provide some evidence for that. You haven't even attempted to do so.

 

[Broken_Erika]

If humans are a product of Evolution, why isn't Head and Shoulders shampoo fatal to humans?