For the misinformed, biologically speaking, race does not exist. | |
Patrick Bateman (OP) User ID: 5234612 United States 11/29/2011 02:05 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | government website yes, but about the human genome project Quoting: Patrick Bateman "DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other. Indeed, it has been proven that there is more genetic variation within races than exists between them." Last sentence of your own quote. Indeed, it has been proven that there is more genetic variation within races than exists between them. Doesn't that statement alone prove that there are Races? If not, why would they end the sentence with something that differentiates them. There are more genetic similarities than differences between humans and Chimps. 99% similar is the most commonly quoted estimate. That small 1% difference, is rather huge though... wouldn't you say? very huge, agreed. But that does not exist among humans. People say race now whether it actually exists scientifically or not because we have given that term meaning. You are in denial, for you do not want to discuss the science. lol, I am reading what you have been posting, If I am wrong I will admit it once I feel the argument has been swayed one way or the other. I am not in denial, DNA does not lie, is that not science? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 5841027 South Africa 11/29/2011 02:05 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | government website yes, but about the human genome project Quoting: Patrick Bateman "DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other. Indeed, it has been proven that there is more genetic variation within races than exists between them." Last sentence of your own quote. Indeed, it has been proven that there is more genetic variation within races than exists between them. Doesn't that statement alone prove that there are Races? If not, why would they end the sentence with something that differentiates them. There are more genetic similarities than differences between humans and Chimps. 99% similar is the most commonly quoted estimate. That small 1% difference, is rather huge though... wouldn't you say? very huge, agreed. But that does not exist among humans. People say race now whether it actually exists scientifically or not because we have given that term meaning. You are in denial, for you do not want to discuss the science. Science have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the genetic difference between the races can be defined as follows. 12% copy number variation and a 25-35% SNP difference.... massive |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 6051071 Australia 11/29/2011 02:05 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 5841027 South Africa 11/29/2011 02:06 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Objectivist Last sentence of your own quote. Indeed, it has been proven that there is more genetic variation within races than exists between them. Doesn't that statement alone prove that there are Races? If not, why would they end the sentence with something that differentiates them. There are more genetic similarities than differences between humans and Chimps. 99% similar is the most commonly quoted estimate. That small 1% difference, is rather huge though... wouldn't you say? very huge, agreed. But that does not exist among humans. People say race now whether it actually exists scientifically or not because we have given that term meaning. You are in denial, for you do not want to discuss the science. Science have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the genetic difference between the races can be defined as follows. 12% copy number variation and a 25-35% SNP difference.... massive Discuss this, or try to disproof it, because this is the only scientific evidence that exists. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 5841027 South Africa 11/29/2011 02:12 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | OP I suspect that you are not really after the truth in this regard and are merely trying to get others over to your side, whether it is scientifically true or not. If you really cared then you would read my first post very carefully, becaquse all the science is contained therein. Myself, well I don't really give a shit and I'm not about to waste more time debating with someone that discounts the science. Hope you have fun running around a tree of your own making. lol. |
Patrick Bateman (OP) User ID: 5234612 United States 11/29/2011 02:14 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | OP Quoting: Anonymous Coward 5841027 I suspect that you are not really after the truth in this regard and are merely trying to get others over to your side, whether it is scientifically true or not. If you really cared then you would read my first post very carefully, becaquse all the science is contained therein. Myself, well I don't really give a shit and I'm not about to waste more time debating with someone that discounts the science. Hope you have fun running around a tree of your own making. lol. your wrong I do care about the truth, hold on I am reading your sources |
Objectivist User ID: 4720976 United States 11/29/2011 02:16 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Perhaps not race then, how about breeds of people, like every other domestic animal. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6051071 If you are referring to taxonomy, the biological equivalent of "Race" would be a sub species. That being said, it would be a political nightmare since that would reintroduce the subspecies in the second sapiens (Humans are Homo Sapiens Sapiens) Whereas today we assume that sapiens sapiens is the only surviving subspecies of the original classification. |
Patrick Bateman (OP) User ID: 5234612 United States 11/29/2011 02:16 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Patrick Bateman very huge, agreed. But that does not exist among humans. People say race now whether it actually exists scientifically or not because we have given that term meaning. You are in denial, for you do not want to discuss the science. Science have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the genetic difference between the races can be defined as follows. 12% copy number variation and a 25-35% SNP difference.... massive Discuss this, or try to disproof it, because this is the only scientific evidence that exists. "Copy number variation (CNV) of DNA sequences is functionally significant but has yet to be fully ascertained" "We show that 10–30% of pairs of individuals within a population share at least one region of extended genetic identity arising from recent ancestry and that up to 1% of all common variants are untaggable, primarily because they lie within recombination hotspots" The research is not even finished you can not conclude races even exist from your sources. Yes some genetic variation exists as I have already admitted, but to assume sub species races by your limited info, can not do it. I do not care what you, or other people think, I just want some people to have the information that they may have never seen, which ever way it goes. But your info is inconclusive to say the least. |
Patrick Bateman (OP) User ID: 5234612 United States 11/29/2011 02:19 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | OP Quoting: Anonymous Coward 5841027 I suspect that you are not really after the truth in this regard and are merely trying to get others over to your side, whether it is scientifically true or not. If you really cared then you would read my first post very carefully, becaquse all the science is contained therein. Myself, well I don't really give a shit and I'm not about to waste more time debating with someone that discounts the science. Hope you have fun running around a tree of your own making. lol. I hope you have fun making your assumptions wrong or right, I care couldn't care less about them. You seem to actually want the truth as well which is the only reason I have responded to you, but your assumptions are of only one study that is not even finished. |
Patrick Bateman (OP) User ID: 5234612 United States 11/29/2011 02:20 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | OP Quoting: Anonymous Coward 5841027 I suspect that you are not really after the truth in this regard and are merely trying to get others over to your side, whether it is scientifically true or not. If you really cared then you would read my first post very carefully, becaquse all the science is contained therein. Myself, well I don't really give a shit and I'm not about to waste more time debating with someone that discounts the science. Hope you have fun running around a tree of your own making. lol. I hope you have fun making your assumptions wrong or right, I care couldn't care less about them. You seem to actually want the truth as well which is the only reason I have responded to you, but your assumptions are of only one study that is not even finished. There is more dna based evidence out there to point to no true sub species than there is that does, sorry sir. |
Patrick Bateman (OP) User ID: 5234612 United States 11/29/2011 02:20 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Perhaps not race then, how about breeds of people, like every other domestic animal. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6051071 If you are referring to taxonomy, the biological equivalent of "Race" would be a sub species. That being said, it would be a political nightmare since that would reintroduce the subspecies in the second sapiens (Humans are Homo Sapiens Sapiens) Whereas today we assume that sapiens sapiens is the only surviving subspecies of the original classification. +1 |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 6051071 Australia 11/29/2011 02:25 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Perhaps not race then, how about breeds of people, like every other domestic animal. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6051071 If you are referring to taxonomy, the biological equivalent of "Race" would be a sub species. That being said, it would be a political nightmare since that would reintroduce the subspecies in the second sapiens (Humans are Homo Sapiens Sapiens) Whereas today we assume that sapiens sapiens is the only surviving subspecies of the original classification. +1 Thankyou I didn't know that. |
Patrick Bateman (OP) User ID: 5234612 United States 11/29/2011 02:30 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | another article stating how the human genome project still has not proven the argument one way or the other. South Africa is beside himself with his 1 study. Last Edited by Patrick Bateman on 11/29/2011 02:35 AM |
KonspiracyKitty User ID: 1295140 United States 11/29/2011 02:32 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | To say that there is absolutely no such thing as "race" only has scientific basis because scientists are put under tremendous social pressure to say so. Saying anything different would be career suicide. But you do not have to dig very deep to find physiological (hence biological, hence genetic) differences: Why is sickle cell anemia so prevalent in blacks when compared to the other races? What about hypertension? Why does alcohol affect native Americans in a different way than Caucasians/Blacks? Why are Asians more likely to be lactose intolerant? Oh, here's a quote from drugs.com on the prescription Lotrel: "You may be more likely to have an allergic reaction if you are African-American." [link to www.drugs.com] Certainly seems there is SOME difference here besides just skin color. You can't blame those things on anything but genes. I believe the genetic difference between races ranges from 5%-15%. That is more than the variance between breeds of dogs. Or domesticated dogs and coyotes. If it wasn't for the political-correctness police, I think we would be considered different sub-species. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, by the way. Such diversity is how species survive. |
Advaita Vedantist User ID: 1255103 United States 11/29/2011 02:33 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Patrick Bateman (OP) User ID: 5234612 United States 11/29/2011 02:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | lol thanks, I do not quite think the debate is over, but I still firmly believe that yes there is some genetic variation, but not enough for there to be set sub species, hence races. Which again may mean to some people that this argument is semantics, but still true. Last Edited by Patrick Bateman on 11/29/2011 02:44 AM |
dristi black User ID: 6157103 Sweden 11/29/2011 03:44 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Patrick Bateman (OP) User ID: 6233508 United States 11/29/2011 11:00 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |