[_ Old Earth _] Are there consequences to believeing in evolution?

[Barbarian]

You've confused the fact that some alleles are strongly associated with some populations with the fact that the total variation within large populations is greater than the variation between them.

The epicanthic fold, for example, does not define a race. Both K'ung and eastern Asians have it. Think about tissue and blood types,and all the rest. You'll find more variation in alleles in any "race" you can define than there is between them.

If you don't understand this, you might want to do some reading on the Human Genome Project.

 

[Crying Rock]

You've confused the fact that some alleles are strongly associated with some populations with the fact that the total variation within large populations is greater than the variation between them.

The epicanthic fold, for example, does not define a race. Both K'ung and eastern Asians have it. Think about tissue and blood types,and all the rest. You'll find more variation in alleles in any "race" you can define than there is between them.

You’ve changed the goalposts twice now.

Your first claim:

Barbarian claimed:

“…It is now clear that genetic flow has been sufficient in all cases to guarantee that the genetic variation WITHIN “ANY†HUMAN “POPULATION†of any size will be greater than the variation between POPULATIONS…â€Â

Then you cited:

Barbarian quoted:

In fact, there is more variation WITHIN RACES than between them.

So you switched goalposts from populations to “racesâ€Â.


Remember, you claimed:

Barbarian claimed:

“…It is now clear that genetic flow has been sufficient in all cases to guarantee that the genetic variation WITHIN “ANY†HUMAN “POPULATION†of any size will be greater than the variation between POPULATIONS…â€Â

And I responded:

Crying Rock:

So where does the variation between individuals and populations exist: in the 99.9% or the .1%?

Where do you suppose the most intra-population variation exists: “LARGE POPULATIONS†that have stayed in the same geographical region for 10’s of thousands of years or small, “ISOLATED POPULATIONS� Which subspecies had the most intra-population variation: H.s.n. or H.s.s.?

Then you switched the goalposts from “ANY HUMAN POPULATION†to “LARGE POPULATIONSâ€Â.

Barbarian claimed:


…the total variation within “LARGE POPULATIONS†is greater than the variation between them…=

So, was your claim:

Barbarian claimed:

“…It is now clear that genetic flow has been sufficient in all cases to guarantee that the genetic variation WITHIN “ANY†HUMAN “POPULATION†of any size will be greater than the variation between POPULATIONS…â€Â

correct?


Which populations had the most intrapopulation variation: H.s.n. or H.s.s.?

Do you think the intrapopulation variation within the H.s.n population was greater than interpopulation variation between H.s.n. and H.s.s.?

Were H.s.n. populations smaller than H.s.s. populations?

Did H. Heidelbergensis populations have more variation than H.s.n. or H.s.s populations?

Does the native Inuit population have more intrapopulation variation than the interpopulation variation between the native Inuit population and the native Burkina Faso population?

Can a whale turn into a hamster if given millions of years? :D

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :D

Barbarian claimed:

The epicanthic fold, for example, does not define a race. Both K'ung and eastern Asians have it. Think about tissue and blood types,and all the rest. You'll find more variation in alleles in any "race" you can define than there is between them.

So we’ve switched goalposts from “Populations†to “Race†again?


If you’ll go back to my first post in this subthread:

Who were the first Caucasians in Europe:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 78537.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... opup&ino=2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B7bVD_DkM4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnzCu-EZVGk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeOqD3uMIRs


Any doubts here that Carly is Caucasian?

I was responding to your statement:

I recall in history a time where leading scientists taught society that black people weren't humans but in fact monkeys. They went out of there way to show research studies! Hhhhmmmm Does anyone else recall this moment in history. To whoever believed that mess!

I should have been more clear. I just think it's ironic, in light of your comment, that current researchers think the first H.s.s. and Caucasoids to set foot in Europe may have been black. Which seems like a no-brainer because they came from Africa. Obviously, I'm using "Caucasoid" in a skeletal morphological sense, not color.

My point was the variation derived (at the very least a significant portion) in ancient Africa produced the very scientists that taught society that black people weren't humans but in fact monkeys. As FB stated, they went out of their way to show research studies!

CR:

I just think it's ironic.

I guess things haven't got much better. Many scientists claim ALL humans are apes. ;)

 

[Barbarian]

Scientists have demonstrated that there are no biological human races. There are populations, but you cannot define any large population as a separate race, because any large population has more genetic variation within it, than variation between such populations.

"Race" is just a social construct in humans. It has no biological reality. And regarding your question about different species of humans, it's not hard to understand. There have been different races and even different species of humans. But currently, there's only one. And within that species, no population shows enough variation to qualify as a race or a subspecies.

And I'm wondering where Carly Simon fits into this. And which scientists classified blacks as monkeys? Could you point to something in the literature?

 

[Crying Rock]

Scientists have demonstrated that there are no biological human races. There are populations, but you cannot define any large population as a separate race, because any large population has more genetic variation within it, than variation between such populations.

Agreed.

"Race" is just a social construct in humans. It has no biological reality.

Agreed, that's why you threw me when you went from populations to races.

However some populations show high incidences of certain traits. Like all
Paleoamericans found to date have dolichocephalic skulls.

The consensus is the earliest American H.s.s. came from South and Southeast Asian populations.

All the variation, excluding mutations, for all modern humans were contained with mtDNA, yDNA and nDNA Adam and Eve.

And regarding your question about different species of humans, it's not hard to understand. There have been different races and even different species of humans. But currently, there's only one. And within that species, no population shows enough variation to qualify as a race or a subspecies.

Yeah, but I'm talking historically and currently.

And I'm wondering where Carly Simon fits into this.

She's "black", according to old school thought, since her mom was "black". Not knowing her history, would someone know if she is 'black" or "white'. According to old school thought she looks as "Caucasoid" (dolichocephalic) as can be.

Here's an interesting opinion on Wilson-Leonard II:

That same issue of the 'Strumpet had some wonderfully interesting cranial/facial reconstructions of a 9900 year old American woman from near modern Austin, Texas. She has been lovingly named 'Wilson-Leonard II' by excavation logic but surely we can improve on that, as we did in Lucy's case. There are two casts, one made by forensic artist Betty P. Gatliff and the other by Arthur H. Rathjens and colleagues of Dow Corning Corp. The results are different to my eye, albeit much like sisters. Although Amerinds have often had a nondescript or unspecialized look, I am hard put to locate either model in a 'race'. Gatliff's could easily be an ancestor common to both Caucasoids and Mongoloids, or simply Caucasoid. The other looks strikingly like a forest tribal person from Southeast Asia, as pictured in Coon's Living Races of Man, or just as easily a pastoral Cushite from the Horn of Africa. Remarkable!

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/mt27.html

http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/plate ... s/head.jpg

http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/plate ... ead-sm.jpg

http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/plate ... annes.html

 

[Barbarian]

Agreed, that's why you threw me when you went from populations to races.

Technically, there are no races. We can accurately only speak of populations.

However some populations show high incidences of certain traits. Like all
Paleoamericans found to date have dolichocephalic skulls.

Sure. But how about things like tissue types? Turns out that gentically, a Matis Indian could very well be a better match for you than someone randomly picked from your own "race."

 

[Crying Rock]

Sure. But how about things like tissue types? Turns out that gentically, a Matis Indian could very well be a better match for you than someone randomly picked from your own "race."

Sure, I don't doubt the possibility.

 

[Sanitarium]

I don't know the answer to this question, so perhaps someone can help me out: what is the difference between Christians and Atheists/ Agnostics when it comes to "living with someone" versus "marrying them" (same thing in my mind)? If you live with someone and it doesn't work out it's not counted as divorce. Is this a potential source of bias?

egads! I know many Christians who are in defacto/commonlaw relationships instead of getting married! Could this be a potential source of bias?

Let's not forget those who are gay who consider themselves to be Christian too (please, put away the kilt before answering for the love of Allah!). These gays can't actually get married in most places....so that could be a potential bias too!


(okay it sounds sarcastic, but I really do know Christians like this).

 

[Sanitarium]

I reported Barna's findings from 1999. Apparently, he took a huge amount of abuse from born-again churches over it, and the report is no longer available on the net.

Aww poor Barna....they wanted to re-write history but the Internet Archive never forgets! Christians Are More Likely to Experience Divorce Than Are Non-Christians December 21, 1999

Darwin's evolution has always been very racist and sexist.

Nice ad hom attack there. You attempt to dismiss the tried and tested scientific theory by attacking the messenger. Well, GojuBrian is ignorant of the facts, therefore Christianity is also ignorant of the facts. Agreed?

What do you think has evolved and do you have biblical back up for this?

Fortunately we no longer rely on the Bible in order to determine what is "scientific" and what is not. One trip through the DARK AGES was enough of that.

No, I wasn't linking you in, I was responding to the racism and sexism in darwinistic evolution.

Examples please.

(yes, I already know you're probably going to quote from Darwin and not present scientific evidence, but I thought I'd give you a chance).

 

[Crying Rock]

I don't know the answer to this question, so perhaps someone can help me out: what is the difference between Christians and Atheists/ Agnostics when it comes to "living with someone" versus "marrying them" (same thing in my mind)? If you live with someone and it doesn't work out it's not counted as divorce. Is this a potential source of bias?

egads! I know many Christians who are in defacto/commonlaw relationships instead of getting married! Could this be a potential source of bias?

Let's not forget those who are gay who consider themselves to be Christian too (please, put away the kilt before answering for the love of Allah!). These gays can't actually get married in most places....so that could be a potential bias too!


(okay it sounds sarcastic, but I really do know Christians like this).

egads! I know many Christians who are in defacto/commonlaw relationships instead of getting married! Could this be a potential source of bias?

Sure.

These gays can't actually get married in most places....so that could be a potential bias too!

Sure.

If you were never formally married then you don't count in this study.

With the current sociological environment in the Americas, I doubt any objective conclusions can be made.

My son (20 years old) is currently in jail for not paying off traffic tickets (dummy decided to sit it out rather than pay the fines… Ha! Bet he won’t that again). The woman he’s lived with for the past year is not allowed to see him: only “family†is allowed to visit him.

 

[Sanitarium]

With the current sociological environment in the Americas, I doubt any objective conclusions can be made.

The study is about married couples who get divorced. You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater, because we highlight irrelevant points.

My son (20 years old) is currently in jail for not paying off traffic tickets (dummy decided to sit it out rather than pay the fines… Ha! Bet he won’t that again). The woman he’s lived with for the past year is not allowed to see him: only “family†is allowed to visit him.

Ah! And there you have given the answer to a question asked by many theists - "Why do Atheists bother to get married?" It's for the status in the eyes of the law. They are then considered "family" and have more rights (under the current law) than those who are not married.

Thank you for taking the time to reply

 

[coelacanth]

Ah! And there you have given the answer to a question asked by many theists - "Why do Atheists bother to get married?" It's for the status in the eyes of the law. They are then considered "family" and have more rights (under the current law) than those who are not married.

Also, all the same reasons that theists do it, minus God. It is still a powerful expression of love, a promise to each other and before family and friends that can signify the official beginning of a committed lifelong relationship. The ceremony bolsters and strengthens the relationship in the eyes of the parties who are wed, those surrounding, as well as the law. It makes it someone more than just a "boyfriend" or "girlfriend". Some atheists would also take it to be very unethical to have children outside of wedlock as well.