• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Using evolution to justify bigotry

AtlantaAdonis

AtlantaAdonis

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
2,383
Reaction score
717
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
AtlantaAdonis said:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...gical-differences-between-the-sexes/#comments

Articles like this make me sick. The scientific community must be in solidarity about opposing all forms of racism and sexism and not attempt to dress up racism and sexism in "scientific" terms. The scientific community must make pariahs out of people who try to dress up prejudice in the language of science.
Click to expand...

Yep. When science contradicts political correctness or even ideology, it is an outrage! But bigots ignore it till the street rebels and you get the choice between Clinton and Trump.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...gical-differences-between-the-sexes/#comments

Articles like this make me sick. The scientific community must be in solidarity about opposing all forms of racism and sexism and not attempt to dress up racism and sexism in "scientific" terms. The scientific community must make pariahs out of people who try to dress up prejudice in the language of science.
Click to expand...

You are definitely one of the people that she is speaking too. What she is pointing out is that she is following where discovery leads her. In other words true science. And what she is saying is that political ideology is forbidding her to follow those discoveries to their ultimate end. In other words political ideology is getting in the way of science. And that is a very bad thing to be happening. Beliefs should never get in the way of science.
 
Sigh. She is not promoting any kind of bigotry. She is saying that science does not support the conclusions people desire society to accept. It's all fine and good to say people should be treated equally under the law, but it's an entirely different thing to suggest that there is no differences between the sexes.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...gical-differences-between-the-sexes/#comments

Articles like this make me sick. The scientific community must be in solidarity about opposing all forms of racism and sexism and not attempt to dress up racism and sexism in "scientific" terms. The scientific community must make pariahs out of people who try to dress up prejudice in the language of science.
Click to expand...

So you are actually one of those who believes that there are no biological differences between the sexes? Aside from the obvious anatomical differences the differences in terms of hormonal response, procreative roles, behavior, etc., are myriad. "No differences" is a rather obvious falsehood and an absurd hill for SJWs to die on. I think even they know that what they are saying isn't true.

And, yes, the differences do in fact imply differences in the roles that the sexes play in the procreative process and family structure, as has been observed to be the case for as far back as we can see in past history.

Sorry, but you can't expect biologists, physiologists, and other scientists to turn a blind eye to all of that.

As for difference between the races, the idea that there is no difference holds up a lot better. Still, there are some differences in terms of prevalence of disease (you don't see too many whites with sickle cell anemia, so we don't screen for that in whites). Some types of stroke are more common in one race than another. But these are minor differences. Still, turning a blind eye to the possibility of differences is not the proper attitude of the scientist or medical doctor. There is very much a movement among medical scientists to the effect that they have ignored important differences between the sexes and the races to the detriment of minorities, and that this has to end. It means that treatment of a given disease, for example, might need to be different for members of different sexes or races.

And if you don't believe that Darwinism is the best explanation for the development of the differences then you really ought to take your Darwin fish down. You are in no wise a Darwinist when you hock a loogie on Darwin's work.

Your insistence that scientists ought to be shamed reminds me of the Russian geneticists who were shamed into giving up their work in development of crop plants and otherwise hounded out of the field because a "scientist", Lysenko, with a (now discredited) idea of how plants gain their inborn characteristics had the ear of the Soviet Politburo.
 
People today that deny the obvious differences in races are cowards fearing persecution from the fascists that breathe only political correctness in favor of truth. They deny evolution and so they re liars and cowards. Man came from the ape and that defines all.
 
She's trying to show that there is no biological difference between the sexes?

That's nonsense, of course.

and whatever does it have to do with evolution?
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...gical-differences-between-the-sexes/#comments

Articles like this make me sick. The scientific community must be in solidarity about opposing all forms of racism and sexism and not attempt to dress up racism and sexism in "scientific" terms. The scientific community must make pariahs out of people who try to dress up prejudice in the language of science.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming there are no genetic differences whatsoever between people whose ancestors were geographically isolated for thousands of years?
 
LowDown said:
As for difference between the races, the idea that there is no difference holds up a lot better. Still, there are some differences in terms of prevalence of disease (you don't see too many whites with sickle cell anemia, so we don't screen for that in whites). Some types of stroke are more common in one race than another. But these are minor differences. Still, turning a blind eye to the possibility of differences is not the proper attitude of the scientist or medical doctor. There is very much a movement among medical scientists to the effect that they have ignored important differences between the sexes and the races to the detriment of minorities, and that this has to end. It means that treatment of a given disease, for example, might need to be different for members of different sexes or races.
Click to expand...

The notion of "races" is based on phenotypes, i.e. how genes are expressed (namely an arbitrary choice of using skin color) rather than any objective difference in the genetic code itself. No scientist can look at a genome and tell you the race of the person it came from. The scientific truth is that there is no genetic basis for the concept of race because our species has not diverged in such a way as to make genomes distinguishable on that basis. Frankly, we haven't been around long enough for that to happen. Everything else is just confirmation bias.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Are you claiming there are no genetic differences whatsoever between people whose ancestors were geographically isolated for thousands of years?
Click to expand...

There is no genomic difference. There is no objective scientific basis for using phenotypes to categorize humans into races. We may just as well be using eye color or the shape of everyone's toenails instead of skin color because at the end of the day all you're going to find is confirmation bias. Humans have a natural inclination to categorize things, but there is no scientific reason to get this granular.
 
Napoleon said:
The notion of "races" is based on phenotypes, i.e. how genes are expressed (namely an arbitrary choice of using skin color) rather than any objective difference in the genetic code itself. No scientist can look at a genome and tell you the race of the person it came from. The scientific truth is that there is no genetic basis for the concept of race because our species has not diverged in such a way as to make genomes distinguishable on that basis. Frankly, we haven't been around long enough for that to happen. Everything else is just confirmation bias.
Click to expand...
They absolutely Can tell race from your genome, and can do so from only a small portion of it.
And many Genetics companies do so every minute of every day.
ie, Send your Blood to NatGeo's Genographic Project, and they'll tell you what Percent of each/Indigenous people/Race you are. (11)
So will 23andMe, Ancestry.com, etc, etc, etc, etc.
ie2, Many races have the seemingly same expression of Black Hair, but black hair is of very different texture in Asians, Caucasians, and 'Blacks.'

"not diverged enough"/"not enough time" is also wrong.
Humans Not only have greater morphological difference than our fellow primates (Chimps/Gorillas) subspecies, but about the same genetic distance as the Four Chimp subspecies.
Chimps (4) and Gorillas (6 or 7) btw, not only have separate Races/subspecies, but two Species each. And most all in a small part of Central West Africa... compared to the much more disparate environments that enabled/forced human races to diverge.
`
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
The notion of "races" is based on phenotypes, i.e. how genes are expressed (namely an arbitrary choice of using skin color) rather than any objective difference in the genetic code itself. No scientist can look at a genome and tell you the race of the person it came from. The scientific truth is that there is no genetic basis for the concept of race because our species has not diverged in such a way as to make genomes distinguishable on that basis. Frankly, we haven't been around long enough for that to happen. Everything else is just confirmation bias.
Click to expand...

There is frequently a tendency to put virtue signaling over the facts when it comes to topic such as this. To do so is not scientific.

One can even get a kit from a commercial company that will enable one to send tissue samples in for analysis and tell you upon doing a DNA analysis how many genes you share with Italians, Spaniards, French, Africans, etc., and give you and idea of what percentage of your ancestors belong to each group. These analyses are reasonably accurate, and so genetic makeup does indeed correlate with ethnicity and national origin. Geneticists have long told us that the mother of all humans was born and lived somewhere in Africa on the basis of such an analysis. Native Indians in the Northwest told researchers to stop doing their damned genetic testing on samples from indian burials because they were all coming up "European", and the Indians didn't like that. Eveyone knew, they said, that their ancestors had always been there, since the beginning of time. They didn't come there from some other place.

This is without knowing how these differences in genetic makeup result in the different phenotypic traits. But it's not magical. There is a connection even if we don't know how it works.

It is emphasized over and over that genetic variation between races is smaller than intra-race variations, although I'm not sure exactly what that's supposed to mean. It's not like a sample from a black person is going to come up white on the DNA test. There is no Black gene or Japan gene. Instead it is polygenetic and complex. Like hair color.

And so geneticists can indeed take a DNA sample from someone and tell us how likely they are to be members of a certain race.
 
LowDown said:
There is frequently a tendency to put virtue signaling over the facts when it comes to topic such as this. To do so is not scientific.

One can even get a kit from a commercial company that will enable one to send tissue samples in for analysis and tell you upon doing a DNA analysis how many genes you share with Italians, Spaniards, French, Africans, etc., and give you and idea of what percentage of your ancestors belong to each group. These analyses are reasonably accurate, and so genetic makeup does indeed correlate with ethnicity and national origin. Geneticists have long told us that the mother of all humans was born and lived somewhere in Africa on the basis of such an analysis. Native Indians in the Northwest told researchers to stop doing their damned genetic testing on samples from indian burials because they were all coming up "European", and the Indians didn't like that. Eveyone knew, they said, that their ancestors had always been there, since the beginning of time. They didn't come there from some other place.

This is without knowing how these differences in genetic makeup result in the different phenotypic traits. But it's not magical. There is a connection even if we don't know how it works.

It is emphasized over and over that genetic variation between races is smaller than intra-race variations, although I'm not sure exactly what that's supposed to mean. It's not like a sample from a black person is going to come up white on the DNA test. There is no Black gene or Japan gene. Instead it is polygenetic and complex. Like hair color.

And so geneticists can indeed take a DNA sample from someone and tell us how likely they are to be members of a certain race.
Click to expand...

I think you've almost reached the true scientific conclusion without realizing it. There is no objective scientific reason for choosing one phenotype over another for the purpose of establishing races. I could carve out "races" based on eye color and find all sorts of genetic coorelations to claim that dividing people into blue, brown, and green races is justified. Blue eyes are a common trait of Northern European peoples as is a mutation in the CCR5 gene. I could claim that this mutation is scientific evidence to justify my categorization and claim that anyone with the CCR5 gene is a member of the blue race - and it would be just as fallacious. You can certainly identify geographically unique genetic differences but you can't conclude based on the presence of that mutation that the person has blue eyes. They could have brown or green eyes.Likewise, you can look at the genetics of a person and conclude that it is geographically consistent with the peoples of South Africa, but you can't tell whether or not that person's skin color (what we base race on today) is black or white.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
I think you've almost reached the true scientific conclusion without realizing it. There is no objective scientific reason for choosing one phenotype over another for the purpose of establishing races. I could carve out "races" based on eye color and find all sorts of genetic coorelations to claim that dividing people into blue, brown, and green races is justified. Blue eyes are a common trait of Northern European peoples as is a mutation in the CCR5 gene. I could claim that this mutation is scientific evidence to justify my categorization and claim that anyone with the CCR5 gene is a member of the blue race - and it would be just as fallacious. You can certainly identify geographically unique genetic differences but you can't conclude based on the presence of that mutation that the person has blue eyes. They could have brown or green eyes.Likewise, you can look at the genetics of a person and conclude that it is geographically consistent with the peoples of South Africa, but you can't tell whether or not that person's skin color (what we base race on today) is black or white.
Click to expand...
No response to my post at the top of this page which Destroyed your outrageous claim/s.
Zero.

As to your new attempt. Nonsense pt II.
No one claims a single/simple mutation is a separate Race/subspecies, and you could Not make a Race out of them.
In fact, Phenotype, like Race/subspecies are SETS of features, tho to a lesser degree than the latter.
Races take thousands++ years to develop.
They are not overnight mutations within like 'Blue Eyes.'
(we occasionally see this disingenuous PC attempt)

So that in a room with 300 Naked people: 100 Pygmies, 100 Scandinavians, and 100 NE Asians, one could easily tell them apart.
Even if a Pygmy was an Albino he would easily discernable from the other groups by the SETS of features that make Race/subspecies.
Along the same line, a Pygmy couple could Not hatch a Christie Brinkley, or Ban Ki Moon.
Race/subspecies is not a One-Generation accident/mutation, but SETS of features born of Milennia of separate evolution.

You make preposterous claims one after the other: 3 or 4 I busted in my unanswered last.
`
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
There is no genomic difference. There is no objective scientific basis for using phenotypes to categorize humans into races. We may just as well be using eye color or the shape of everyone's toenails instead of skin color because at the end of the day all you're going to find is confirmation bias. Humans have a natural inclination to categorize things, but there is no scientific reason to get this granular.
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting the differences are significant, but we shouldn't pretend things like different eye color don't exist.
 
Deuce said:
I'm not suggesting the differences are significant, but we shouldn't pretend things like different eye color don't exist.
Click to expand...

Oh, sure and I don't think anyone is claiming that there are no phenotype differences - but there is a distinction between genetic difference and genetic expression. How much pigmentation is produced in someone's iris or in their skin is not something you can tell by looking at their genome.
 
Last edited:
Telling it like it is is forbidden in our democracy. The traits of different peoples on Earth are as plain as the noses on their faces.
 
rhinefire said:
Telling it like it is is forbidden in our democracy. The traits of different peoples on Earth are as plain as the noses on their faces.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why the police are kicking down your door right now.
 
mbig said:
No response to my post at the top of this page which Destroyed your outrageous claim/s.
Zero.

As to your new attempt. Nonsense pt II.
No one claims a single/simple mutation is a separate Race/subspecies, and you could Not make a Race out of them.
In fact, Phenotype, like Race/subspecies are SETS of features, tho to a lesser degree than the latter.
Races take thousands++ years to develop.
They are not overnight mutations within like 'Blue Eyes.'
(we occasionally see this disingenuous PC attempt)

So that in a room with 300 Naked people: 100 Pygmies, 100 Scandinavians, and 100 NE Asians, one could easily tell them apart.
Even if a Pygmy was an Albino he would easily discernable from the other groups by the SETS of features that make Race/subspecies.
Along the same line, a Pygmy couple could Not hatch a Christie Brinkley, or Ban Ki Moon.
Race/subspecies is not a One-Generation accident/mutation, but SETS of features born of Milennia of separate evolution.

You make preposterous claims one after the other: 3 or 4 I busted in my unanswered last.
`
Click to expand...

The thing is.. if you look at those genetic groups... the variation between the individuals of those groups on average is greater than the variations between the groups.

That is why it would be more scientifically accurate to say 'ethnic group', rather than race.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
 
RAMOSS said:
The thing is.. if you look at those genetic groups... the variation between the individuals of those groups on average is greater than the variations between the groups.That is why it would be more scientifically accurate to say 'ethnic group', rather than race.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
Click to expand...
Yes, Let me help.
The numbers usually cited are 85%/15%.
That claim originated by eminent geneticist Richard Lewontin who is famous for saying (enshrining) that '85% of the difference is among races and only 15% between them.'
Of course, while this is 'true', it's is deceiving and has become known as "Lewontin's Fallacy." Google please.
But It's true ONLY when looking at one gene loci at a time.
When looking at more than in, such as 100, race is 99% obvious and distinguishable.

1. Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy.
Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy. - PubMed - NCBI

2. Evo and Proud: The fast runners of evolution
[.....]

2. Lewontin’s finding is true only if we look at one gene at a time

Genes vary much more within than between human populations only if we look at one gene at a time. The pattern reverses if we aggregate variation at several gene loci. The more we aggregate, the more the genetic variation will exist between populations and not within them. This point was first made by Cavalli-Sforza back in 1966 and later by Mitton (1977, 1978), Edwards (2003), and Sesardic (2010).

3. A big chunk of inter-individual genetic variation is actually intra-individual

Although only 15% of human genetic variation is composed of population differences, the remaining 85% is not necessarily between individuals. Since we are diploid organisms, some genetic variation is actually intra-individual—the differences between the genes you inherited from your mother and the genes you inherited from your father. If we factor out this kind of variation, population differences actually account for a Third of all human genetic variation (Sarich and Miele, 2004)
[.......]
(a) Much genetic variation is of Low selective value, often being little more than "junk" variability, and thus responds weakly to changes in selection pressure.

(b) Much genetic variation is equally adaptive in both of the new adaptive landscapes. There are many cases of genetic polymorphisms that widely occur not only among different populations of one species, but also among related species (Klein et al., 1998).

Fst cannot tell us how much populations really differ from each other within a species—and by ‘really’ we’re talking about adaptive differences that show up in anatomy, physiology, and behavior. It basically tells us how long these populations have been separated from each other, with some adjustment for ongoing gene flow. In our case, Fst tells us that human races are young, very young.

But this we know already. The past 40,000 years have seen our ancestors spread into a multitude of natural environments—from tropical rain forest to arctic tundra....
We also know that these same years have seen an Accelerating pace of genetic change. Natural selection has altered at least 7% of our genome over the last 40,000 years. In particular, the speed of genetic change rose over a Hundred-fold with the advent of agriculture some 10,000 years ago (Hawks et al, 2007).​


Looking at Gene Clusters instead of single locations, the results are Unmistakable.
3. Human genetic variation, Fst and Lewontin's fallacy in pictures
Information Processing: Human genetic variation, Fst and Lewontin's fallacy in pictures
Picture+2.png

Figure: The THREE clusters shown above are European (top, green + Red), Nigerian (light blue) and E. Asian (Purple + Blue).

The figure seems to contradict an often stated observation about human genetic diversity, which has become known among experts as Lewontin's fallacy: genetic variation between two random individuals in a given population accounts for 80% or more of the total variation within the entire human population. Therefore, according to the fallacy, any classification of humans into groups ("races") based on genetic information is impossible. ("More variation within groups than between groups.")​

Can anyone claim there is No Unmistakable difference when looking at Clusters/MORE than one gene at a time?
Of course NOT. The same way (AND reason) you would be able to tell apart with 100% Accuracy, 100 pygmies, from 100 East Asians, from 100 Scandinavians.

4. Lewontin's Fallacy explained/Debunked in a single 6 min Youtube
Easy to understand.

`
 
RAMOSS said:
And,other people disagree with Edwards...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin's_Fallacy
Click to expand...
Yes, I know.
I gave YOU the Google suggestion, with Wiki at the top.
Your welcome for the edu!

And Edwards was Hardly my only source.
I posted links everyone could understand:
The amount of the 85% that is irrelevant/Junk-DNA, etc..,.
The easily identifiable Clusters, etc.

Most anyone can, and many do, discern Races quite easily.
(ie, NatGeo, and Two cos I mentioned on the last page)
IAC, It's not some mystery and we don't need to call it 'ethnicity', and I certainly don't.
Have good night
 
I didn't read the article, because come on, none of us have to.

The article says that every black nation run by black people is uncivilized and can't even feed themselves. Haiti is in the rich western hemisphere, yet they're starving and live in cardboard shacks.

The most dangerous places to live in the USA are predominantly black and governed by blacks. Memphis, Detroit, Baltimore, D.C., St. Louis, Chicago, Atlanta, New Orleans and Cleveland. None of this matters. They can't help it. It's just a coincidence. Like it's a coincidence that the other most dangerous places in the Western Hemisphere are Kingston, Port-Au-Prince, Port-of-Spain, Porto Allegre, and Sao Paulo.

I think it's appalling that anyone would use facts to justify facts. So what if every majority black populated place in the world is a violent cesspool full of people who can't survive without benefits and who have never invented anything or done anything whatsoever to further Mankind?

This is the epitome of racism. And I'm sick of it. #blacklivesmatter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom