• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.

Don't wind up Maajid Nawaz

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by sasguru View Post
    Do you follow , or even attempt to read, any of what the who's who of population geneticists in that list said? Or do you think your brain farts are sufficient to form a conclusion? And you call me a Feck wit? I honestly feel sorry for you wandering through life in a fog of ignorance.
    I did and their main objection seems to be with the use of the word Race, specifically the definition of a biological race :
    A Troublesome Response: Nicholas Wade Still Avoids the Debate About Race and Genetics | HuffPost

    The word ‘‘race’’ is not commonly used in the non-human biological
    literature. Evolutionary biologists have many words for subdivisions
    within a species (Templeton, 2006). At the lowest level
    are demes, local breeding populations. Demes have no connotation
    of being a major subdivision or type within a species. In human
    population genetics, even small ethnic groups or tribes are frequently
    subdivided into multiple demes, whereas ‘‘race’’ always refers
    to a much larger grouping. Another type of subdivision is
    ‘‘ecotype’’, which refers to a group of individuals sharing one or
    more adaptations to a specific environment. Sometimes the defining
    environmental variable is widespread, so an ecotype can refer
    to a large geographical population. However, sometimes the environmental
    heterogeneity can exist on a small geographical scale. In
    such circumstances, a single local area with no significant genetic
    subdivision for almost all genes can contain more than one ecotype
    (e.g., Oberle & Schaal, 2011). Ecotypes are therefore not universally
    a major subdivision or type within a species, but sometimes
    merely a local polymorphism. Ecotypes cannot define ‘‘race’’ in a
    manner applicable to all species, and whether or not ecotypes
    can define human races will be addressed later. Of all the words
    used to describe subdivisions or subtypes within a species, the
    one that has been explicitly defined to indicate major geographical
    ‘‘races’’ or subdivisions is ‘‘subspecies’
    I'm not sure terming those with predominantly African heritage (for instance) as subspecies is particularly helpful with the layman.

    https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.w...-in-humans.pdf

    If they wanted to use another more accessible term I would be fine with it.

    They see race as a social construct not a result of evolution. The majority of the public don't. From the outside it seems to be like redefining genders to include edge cases. It won't be popular and most people won't understand why you want to do it.

    As my 'Brain fart' said if they want to rename it then great, but it is a thing at least for many, there do seem to be traits in each 'subspecies' that are interesting and need working with just as there are cultural reasons for actions we should investigate.

    I prefer to go round in my 'fog' than I would be like you with my head up my arse.

    Leave a comment:


  • shaunbhoy
    replied
    Originally posted by sasguru View Post
    I honestly feel sorry for you wandering through life in a fog of ignorance.
    Does that mean that you wouldn't feel sorry for him if you weren't wandering through life in a fog of ignorance?

    Leave a comment:


  • sasguru
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    hmm so we are all really exactly the same, evolution of isolated strains travelled at the same rate and picked the same biological advantage over the millennia. Significant differences in appearance & physical composition of these different 'races' is just a quaint symptom and has no effect on their abilities. Makes perfect sense maybe there was a sky fairy in charge?

    I do feel sorry for those that suffer certain diseases more because their ancestry and the strain they came from obviously had nothing to do with it.

    Ass you really are a feckwit.

    Now if the scientists wanted to describe the evolutionary strains differently and avoid the race word I can see a point in that, how about "Common Ancestry" or "Darwinian strain". But to try and convince people that disjointed systems kept to the same plan and level of progress in different parts of the world with different environments is laughable. Up until 2000 years ago procreating with anyone over 100 miles away was shockingly rare.

    With the best engineering and design we still synchronise our time with a single source so it stays valid. However we are expected to believe the outcome from separate evolution processes which is billions of times more complex than keeping time manages to stay in sync over millions of years and billions of random chances.
    Do you follow , or even attempt to read, any of what the who's who of population geneticists in that list said? Or do you think your brain farts are sufficient to form a conclusion? And you call me a Feck wit? I honestly feel sorry for you wandering through life in a fog of ignorance.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by sasguru View Post
    Aussieschlong is not very bright nor well educated.
    So he was taken in by a journalist who wanted to sell a book (controversial books about race sell well).
    Unfortunately 140 population geneticists I.e. The people who really know about this stuff signed a letter saying he was talking bollox:
    Geneticists decry book on race and evolution | Science | AAAS

    HTH! BIKIW
    hmm so we are all really exactly the same, evolution of isolated strains travelled at the same rate and picked the same biological advantage over the millennia. Significant differences in appearance & physical composition of these different 'races' is just a quaint symptom and has no effect on their abilities. Makes perfect sense maybe there was a sky fairy in charge?

    I do feel sorry for those that suffer certain diseases more because their ancestry and the strain they came from obviously had nothing to do with it.

    Ass you really are a feckwit.

    Now if the scientists wanted to describe the evolutionary strains differently and avoid the race word I can see a point in that, how about "Common Ancestry" or "Darwinian strain". But to try and convince people that disjointed systems kept to the same plan and level of progress in different parts of the world with different environments is laughable. Up until 2000 years ago procreating with anyone over 100 miles away was shockingly rare.

    With the best engineering and design we still synchronise our time with a single source so it stays valid. However we are expected to believe the outcome from separate evolution processes which is billions of times more complex than keeping time manages to stay in sync over millions of years and billions of random chances.

    Leave a comment:


  • sasguru
    replied
    Originally posted by original PM View Post
    Very interesting read.
    If you're a gullible cretin, yes. Oh wait ....

    Leave a comment:


  • original PM
    replied
    Originally posted by Fronttoback View Post
    It's an old debate but this article speaks on the biological basis of race. And Time has a left leaning bias Sue.

    Former New York Times Science Editor: Race Is Real | Time.com

    The liberal left will not push anything that makes them look heartless. Even if it is for the greater good of the indigenous working class.
    Very interesting read.

    Leave a comment:


  • sasguru
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    Thanks that article is exactly what I was trying to say. i.e. Vive Le Difference! Not all races are the same and anyone who says otherwise is a racist.
    Aussieschlong is not very bright nor well educated.
    So he was taken in by a journalist who wanted to sell a book (controversial books about race sell well).
    Unfortunately 140 population geneticists I.e. The people who really know about this stuff signed a letter saying he was talking bollox:
    Geneticists decry book on race and evolution | Science | AAAS

    HTH! BIKIW
    Last edited by sasguru; 15 August 2017, 20:11.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by Fronttoback View Post
    It's an old debate but this article speaks on the biological basis of race. And Time has a left leaning bias Sue.

    Former New York Times Science Editor: Race Is Real | Time.com

    The liberal left will not push anything that makes them look heartless. Even if it is for the greater good of the indigenous working class.
    Thanks that article is exactly what I was trying to say. i.e. Vive Le Difference! Not all races are the same and anyone who says otherwise is a racist.

    Leave a comment:


  • BrilloPad
    replied
    Originally posted by MarillionFan View Post
    WHS. You knew where you were with the Krays. They only did their own and you could leave your door unlocked.
    Not quite correct. They would shank anyone. But they did shake your hand first.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fronttoback
    replied
    It's an old debate but this article speaks on the biological basis of race. And Time has a left leaning bias Sue.

    Former New York Times Science Editor: Race Is Real | Time.com

    The liberal left will not push anything that makes them look heartless. Even if it is for the greater good of the indigenous working class.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X