Anti-Creationists......time to speak your clout
Options
Comments
-
@melanated khemist Have you read The Source Field Investigations: The Hidden Science and Lost Civilizations..?? Any opinion on it?
-
nah dont believe in evolution or darwinism which leads to social darwinism
-
i took this archeology course when i was in college taught by this indian teacher she would stress the "fact" that indians were Caucasoid and relied heavily on james d watsons theories "creator of double helix) something always seemed off to me then a few years later i hear on npr that this james d watson dude got caught going on a racist rant
-
West Brooklyn II wrote: »@melanated khemist Have you read The Source Field Investigations: The Hidden Science and Lost Civilizations..?? Any opinion on it?
no. would you recommend?
right now in reading The Living State-II (Bk. 2)
R. K. Mishra
and im just starting this Crazy ass Book of the Transcendence: Cosmic History Chronicles Volume 6
Jose Arguelles, Stephanie South
-
melanated khemist wrote: »West Brooklyn II wrote: »@melanated khemist Have you read The Source Field Investigations: The Hidden Science and Lost Civilizations..?? Any opinion on it?
no. would you recommend?
right now in reading The Living State-II (Bk. 2)
R. K. Mishra
and im just starting this Crazy ass Book of the Transcendence: Cosmic History Chronicles Volume 6
Jose Arguelles, Stephanie South
naahh I haven't read it but it came up as a recommendation from the site while I was searching for those books you listed -
http://io9.com/5039142/race-has-little-to-do-with-genetic-makeup-say-scientists
There is much doubt in the scientific community that 'race' will lead to anything meaningful. Perhaps Bambu we will find that there are significant genetics differences amongst the 'races' but I doubt it. We as a species have only been out of Africa 200,000 years. Other climate driven changes humans as a species have lived in remarkably similar fashions around the world until about 10,000 years ago. How and when would these differences arise?
Humans are amazingly similar at the genetic level. About 1.2 million years ago when our ancestors were H eructus our species almost went extinct. Our ancestors dropped to about 18,000 total members. Because of this there is more genetic variance within a single tribe of baboons than in the entire human race. Trying break out this already homogenize population seems a exercise in genetic hair-splitting.
-
@Whar......
You keep saying the same ? tho'........
So what only ten percent of the human genome is responsible for the "races" or continental differences in humans???
Again, minute genetic differences can mean a lot.......
Abstract
Digital information is accumulating at an astounding rate, straining our ability to store and archive it. DNA is among the most dense and stable information media known. The development of new technologies in both DNA synthesis and sequencing make DNA an increasingly feasible digital storage medium. Here, we develop a strategy to encode arbitrary digital information in DNA, write a 5.27-megabit book using DNA microchips, and read the book using next-generation DNA sequencing.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/08/15/science.1226355.abstract
What they ended up with was a viscous liquid that held a billion copies of the book, could comfortably fit into test tube and could last for centuries without requiring, say, extreme cold or tremendous energy to preserve it, unlike some other experimental forms of storage.
“You can drop it wherever you want, in the desert or your backyard, and it will be there 400,000 years later,” Church said in a press release.
"Though few of the bits of human genetic code that vary between individuals have yet to be tied to physical or behavioral traits, scientists have found that roughly 10 percent of them are more common in certain continental groups and can be used to distinguish people of different races. They say that studying the differences, which arose during the tens of thousands of years that human populations evolved on separate continents after their ancestors dispersed from humanity’s birthplace in East Africa, is crucial to mapping the genetic basis for disease."
-
You have not offered a reason why to stress the 6-10% the vary geographically over the 90% that does not. You and I could be more closely related across 100% of our genome than I to some white guy and you to some black guy. Why would we place you into the 'black' race and I into the 'white' race? The answer is society has created these definition.
-
Arguing with someone who believes in talking snakes and magical santa claus in the sky is as pointless as arguing with someone who thinks they're a half filled cup of orange juice that will spill when they tip over.
-
You have not offered a reason why to stress the 6-10% the vary geographically over the 90% that does not. You and I could be more closely related across 100% of our genome than I to some white guy and you to some black guy. Why would we place you into the 'black' race and I into the 'white' race? The answer is society has created these definition.
Society did create the "black" and "white" races.....
However society did not create the biological differences found in humans of different continental origins.......
And you cant read.....
I have provided several reasons "to stress" the biological differences in humans......
-
You have posted a page stating minute changes can have 'big' effect (which apparently means easily observable to the normal person.) Yet you have not offered a reason why we should stress these effects on 10% of genome when the same holds true for the other 90%. If big difference exist in the 10% then 9x as many differences exist in the remainder. Why order people according to the 10%?
-
You have posted a page stating minute changes can have 'big' effect (which apparently means easily observable to the normal person.) Yet you have not offered a reason why we should stress these effects on 10% of genome when the same holds true for the other 90%. If big difference exist in the 10% then 9x as many differences exist in the remainder. Why order people according to the 10%?
-
This 10% variation theory holds little weight.
https://www.princeton.edu/genomics/kruglyak/publication/PDF/2004_Parker_Genetic.pdf
In this paper it is outlined that dog breeds have a genetic variation of about 27%An analysis of molecular
variance (16) in the microsatellite
data showed that variation among breeds accounts
for more than 27% of total genetic
variation.
That is why the arguments for race does not hold up. There is not even half as much variation among races as there are among dog breeds. The evidence is just not ample enough to prove it exists. -
Your image has 2 SNPs one that Europeans developed paler skin and two east Asians don't sweat as much as West Asians. In fact the first bolded quote is "Most genetic variation is evenly distributed across the world." This means a person in Africa could share more genetic similarity with a person from Asia than some other individual from Africa.
Why should genetic differences that vary by region receive greater recognition over traits that do not? Particularly since the traits that do not out number then by 9 to 1? -
Reading is fundamental.....
You have to actually get past the first bolded statement....
When scientists first decoded the human genome in 2000, they were quick to portray it as proof of humankind’s remarkable similarity. The DNA of any two people, they emphasized, is at least 99 percent identical.
But new research is exploring the remaining fraction to explain differences between people of different continental origins.
Scientists, for instance, have recently identified small changes in DNA that account for the pale skin of Europeans, the tendency of Asians to sweat less and West Africans’ resistance to certain diseases.
“There are clear differences between people of different continental ancestries,” said Marcus W. Feldman, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford University. “It’s not there yet for things like I.Q., but I can see it coming. And it has the potential to spark a new era of racism if we do not start explaining it better.”
"Though few of the bits of human genetic code that vary between individuals have yet to be tied to physical or behavioral traits, scientists have found that roughly 10 percent of them are more common in certain continental groups and can be used to distinguish people of different races. They say that studying the differences, which arose during the tens of thousands of years that human populations evolved on separate continents after their ancestors dispersed from humanity’s birthplace in East Africa, is crucial to mapping the genetic basis for disease."
^^^ your science fella....
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html?pagewanted=allGIFSoup
-
Posting the same argument over and over again does not discredit the evidence disproving it.
-
? please.....
Who disproved it????
You talking bout some ? dog dna.....
GTFOHWTBS..................
None of yall ? got a response for this ? ...
Only thing you proved is that you cannot read..... -
You are trying to prove that race exists with minimal examples of genetic variation among humans. Whar showed how minimal it is through a simple critical analysis of the percentages given in your argument. I showed how minimal it is by contrasting those same percentages to the percentage of genetic variation among dog breeds and illustrated the insignificance of those figures you gave.
Furthermore, one should note that currently Haploid testing is not reliable enough to determine someone's race. Race cannot be accurately determined solely through DNA. However, in that same Princeton study I posted 410 of 414 dogs were correctly assigned to their breed through analysis of their DNA. This further highlights how meaningless 10% of genetic variation is.
Attack my counter arguments. If you post that same refuted image again prepare for comedic mockery. -
Finally - we have testimony from The National Human Genome Research Institute
http://www.genome.gov/DNADay/q.cfm?aid=267&year=2009
-
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/humanmigration.shtmlWill genetic anthropology establish scientific criteria for race or ethnicity?
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.
-
You stupid.....
Can race be determined by looking at DNA?
Barry H. Thompson, M.D., M.S.: As Medical Director at AMCG, I am responsible for activities such as professional practices, clinical guidelines, and ethical aspects of clinical genetics. No. While some genes (and related disorders) may be more common in one subset of the human population than in others, there is no "racial determinant" in the human genome.
WRONG.....
I posted earlier that microscopic DNA can hold more information than any man made information storage.....
This means that .05% of dna can hold tons of information.....
So that little 10% that y'all claim to not be enough.....
Is more than enough.....
And according to evolutionary scientists, 98% of dna is "junk".....
So actually the 10% of differences is taken out of 2% of human dna that holds information.......
-
10% of 2% = .2%
Regardless of how many genes may actually be in that 0.2% I have shown numerous times that it is not significant enough to say that race exists.
This is an excerpt from the new york times piece you posted“I’ve spent the last 10 years of my life researching how much genetic variability there is between populations,” said Dr. David Altshuler, director of the Program in Medical and Population Genetics at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Mass. “But living in America, it is so clear that the economic and social and educational differences have so much more influence than genes. People just somehow fixate on genetics, even if the influence is very small.”
and anotherRace, many sociologists and anthropologists have argued for decades, is a social invention historically used to justify prejudice and persecution
The article you posted provides testimony that defeats the argument you are trying to support with it. -
? .....
-
This discussion has been closed.