Posted on 03/13/2012 1:35:44 PM PDT by ImJustAnotherOkie
Please define “race” for me.
What you posted was old racist garbage someone posted on Wikipedia, the “rest of the world” is not basing their thinking on human populations on the simplistic thinking that there are only FIVE distinct racial categories - and that any other distinction is derived through ‘mongrelization’.
Instead we know how human populations grow distinct when in reproductive isolation, and we know that humans cannot easily be separated into five groups - and if you did they wouldn't be the five groups you outlined - if based upon actual DNA data.
Do you think the chart I posted based upon DNA data is in error? Do you have another chart based upon actual DNA data that you would prefer?
I am locating the source. But do you ACTUALLY think it is based upon erroneous data - or ‘any port in a storm’ when you are incapable of defending your archaic wiki-racist argument?
Your racist-wiki argument is NOT what is widely accepted in the scientific community. Only if you got in a time machine and went back to when it was based upon speculation rather than data. Now we have data. So there should be no excuse for talking about five groups and “mongrels” and claiming it is modern scientific thinking on the subject.
http://www.pnas.org/content/85/16/6002.full.pdf
This represents modern scientific thinking on the subject of genetically distinct human population groups - otherwise known as “races”.
Notice please Figure #1.
The five - based upon actual DNA difference - would be...
African
Europeans, Indians, Iranians, Arabs, etc
Asian/Amerindian/Eskimo
Pacific Islanders
New Guinean/Australian
But why draw the line so that you have created five “bins”? Especially when the bins that were arbitrarily filled do not represent reality? I mean - couldn't they at least be accurate “bins”? If you feel the need to separate humanity into five and only five groups.
“Notice please Figure #1”
based on linguistic classification; means squat.
Look at Table 1; there are the 5 categories/races.
Ho hum...another day, another outraged group. Yawn...it happens so much these days.
The left side of Figure #1 was based entirely upon genetic differences and is a reproduction of the data I presented - thus representing “modern science” and what is thought about genetically distinct human populations.
The right side tried to take the work I cited and match it to linguistics. You can say that means “squat” if you want to make that argument - but while you get your own opinion - you are not entitled to your own facts.
The fact is that chart is based upon quantifiable genetic differences. It even has the number at the top of the chart.
Table 1 has five comparisons - not five races.
The first comparison in Table 1 is African/non-African - showing the difference between these two “bins”.
Is “African/non-African” a race?
“Your racist-wiki argument is NOT what is widely accepted in the scientific community.”
It’s not my racist anything. It’s what’s accepted, and you’re in denial. You’re the racist by calling others, who are trying to have a civil discussion with you, a bullshit term like “racist”. That tells me and everyone here, that YOU ARE THE CLOSET RACIST! And now you’re out of the closet!
You’ve utterly failed in your argument, name-caller.
Stanford is a left-wing craphole. Because the nas.org published that gobbledy-gook tripe opinion of 4, doesn’t mean it’s accepted by the worldwide scientific community; it just means it was *published*, and that’s all it means. It’s the opinion of 4 people, that’s all.
Show me *where* it’s accepted as modern-day fact, by that entire community I refer to. Show me.
I’ll wait...
Yes, another “outraged group” yelling moronic, idiotic garbage.
Please explain that to the irrational name-caller, allmendream.
I’m ending this utter waste of time with him/her on this now-worthless thread, and moving on.
Later...
From Wiki the article on race. That is the wiki racist argument you posted. I did not call you a racist. I pointed out that the argument you posted and are attempting to defend is racist. The article itself said the argument was archaic and tied up with racist thinking.
The data I cited has been cited by thousands of other scientists. It is not just Stanford and their department of Genetics - but genetics departments AROUND THE WORLD - including Italy and the Universities of Torino and Parma - just from THIS PAPER ALONE!
Get back to me when you have an argument based upon actual data - until they you are...
a) citing wiki
b) citing an argument wiki says is racist and archaic
c) saying this argument represents modern scientific thinking on the subject
Girl, please. Even looking at your airbrushed and photoshoped pics, I can honestly say I've seen better at most backwoods divebars. If I saw you in the street, I probably wouldn't even notice. And girl, if you were truly as "beautiful" as you believe, you wouldn't still be charging daddy's card at 30.
Ugly inside and out and she's never earned a cent in her life. Why do we allow such scum to be on TV and get watched by children?
Obviously an agenda to destroy America and turn it into a entitlement society. Painfully clear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.