- Status
whar;4720506 said:
@Whar......
I love Wikipedia because they reveal all of their sources, it is a requirement......
I suggest that you start to click on some of the footnotes and references.....
That squarehead that you quote has no "evidence" for the outrageous claim that 99% percent of scientists agree on that dumb shit......
For future reference, anytime you see anyone agree 99% on an issue.......
Your antenna should go up......
http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm
careful you must be when employing European science.....
And I dont think you want to go there with the DNA fella......
Add a little melanin in the mix.....
And you might just pop your top......
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html?pagewanted=all
Last edited:
Bambu all you have found is genetic difference within a population. This is common. You are choosing to to call that a race. Individuals from Europe have share a genetic trait but this makes them no more a race than brown-eyed people are a race.
A human being with pale skin from Northern Iran could have more genetically in common with a human being from east Africa than that same east African has with a west African. How then do you define race except by selectively picking traits and stating these will be important to me. You have selected skin tone. I could use blood type for my definition. At least mine has some practical value as you would not want blood transfusions from someone outside your blood type.
What science is showing about race is about 6% our the DNA that makes up a difference between humans accounts for the phenotypical differences between the races while 94% of the differences between people occur outside this concept of race. Only society stresses this 6%. There is nothing in science to elevate that 6% over the remainder.
Finally, the overwhelming support for evolution among life science scientist is documented on that page. Even outside of the field of biology 95% of all scientist support evolution (theistic or otherwise).
Bambu you can get as shrill or childish as you like but you are arguing against facts not theory.
1. Common descent of life is a fact
2. Overwhelming support for the theory of evolution exists within the field of the life sciences is a fact.
A human being with pale skin from Northern Iran could have more genetically in common with a human being from east Africa than that same east African has with a west African. How then do you define race except by selectively picking traits and stating these will be important to me. You have selected skin tone. I could use blood type for my definition. At least mine has some practical value as you would not want blood transfusions from someone outside your blood type.
What science is showing about race is about 6% our the DNA that makes up a difference between humans accounts for the phenotypical differences between the races while 94% of the differences between people occur outside this concept of race. Only society stresses this 6%. There is nothing in science to elevate that 6% over the remainder.
Finally, the overwhelming support for evolution among life science scientist is documented on that page. Even outside of the field of biology 95% of all scientist support evolution (theistic or otherwise).
Bambu you can get as shrill or childish as you like but you are arguing against facts not theory.
1. Common descent of life is a fact
2. Overwhelming support for the theory of evolution exists within the field of the life sciences is a fact.
You sounding stupid again yo......
LOL..... so its 95% of biology now????......
Race or "differences between people of different continental origins"........
Call it what you like, but it still provides "a definition of race using DNA rather than simple appearance"......
1. False
2. False
-0..... 2/2......100%......A+
"study high.....take the test high......get high scores" ~ Jamal
LOL..... so its 95% of biology now????......
Race or "differences between people of different continental origins"........
Call it what you like, but it still provides "a definition of race using DNA rather than simple appearance"......
1. False
2. False
-0..... 2/2......100%......A+
"study high.....take the test high......get high scores" ~ Jamal
bambu;4721006 said:whar;4720506 said:
@Whar......
I love Wikipedia because they reveal all of their sources, it is a requirement......
I suggest that you start to click on some of the footnotes and references.....
That squarehead that you quote has no "evidence" for the outrageous claim that 99% percent of scientists agree on that dumb shit......
For future reference, anytime you see anyone agree 99% on an issue.......
Your antenna should go up......
http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm
careful you must be when employing European science.....
And I dont think you want to go there with the DNA fella......
Add a little melanin in the mix.....
And you might just pop your top......
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html?pagewanted=all
GIFSoup
Last edited:
bambu;4721953 said:
Reading is fundamental. I stated OUTSIDE biology support is 95%. However even I made an error in phrasing that since the 95% is all scientists including biologists. Since ever check made of biologists shows support around 99% or higher. That means outside biology support would be slightly less than 95% (by a couple points perhaps). However 99% support, within a field, of a theory is quite common General Relativity, Germ Theory, and Bohrs model for the Atom. There are virtually no physicist that deny general relativity. It has too much evidence. Evolution is the same.
You stated that race was more than a social concept. It is not. Race as you define it (or really as society has defined it) is about visual phenotypic differences only. This is a small fraction of the active human genome. There is no valid reason in science to group people according to this small percentage. If we choose a different 6% of the genome we would group people entirely differently but it would still be arbitrary.
It really dosent matter what percent of scientists or laymen support evolution........
At one point in time 99% of people supported theories that the earth was flat and the solar system was geocentric.........
Evolution recives the support that it does because the terminology is conflated.......
It also describes "change over time" which is easily proven.......
However the origins of species is not and will not be proven........
Funny how evolution supporters want to throw out evidence associated with biological difference in mankind and support a egalitarian view about mankind........
What happened to the "survival of the fittest"?????
According to your scientists, over 90% of DNA is junk, or serving no purpose......
So just because the DNA differences take place in 1% of the human genome does not mean that they do not exist or there is no reason to group people according to these differences......
Reading is fundamental......I suggest you try it sometime......
"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."
GIFSoup
At one point in time 99% of people supported theories that the earth was flat and the solar system was geocentric.........
Evolution recives the support that it does because the terminology is conflated.......
It also describes "change over time" which is easily proven.......
However the origins of species is not and will not be proven........
Funny how evolution supporters want to throw out evidence associated with biological difference in mankind and support a egalitarian view about mankind........
What happened to the "survival of the fittest"?????
According to your scientists, over 90% of DNA is junk, or serving no purpose......
So just because the DNA differences take place in 1% of the human genome does not mean that they do not exist or there is no reason to group people according to these differences......
Reading is fundamental......I suggest you try it sometime......
"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."
Last edited:
“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.”
whar;4729464 said:
Well you are the one that supports evolution.....
You tell me why these differences should not be viewed as "survival of the fittest" ??????.......
Reading is fundamental......
"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."
Ajackson17
New member
RodrigueZz;4741592 said:
I think we all know that and for the most part that's what a lot of atheists anger tends to point out. Is it christian doctrine you hate or is it the followers of Christianity.
Man... Fuck all that shit......
Ya'll evolutionary cowards have yet to provide a model of evolution where this is not the outcome......
Smart/Dumb niggas applying egalitarian principles to the theory of evolution......
What happened to "survival of the fittest" nigga????
"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."
Ya'll evolutionary cowards have yet to provide a model of evolution where this is not the outcome......
Smart/Dumb niggas applying egalitarian principles to the theory of evolution......
What happened to "survival of the fittest" nigga????
"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."
Last edited:
Ajackson17
New member
RodrigueZz;4741592 said:
I think we all know that and for the most part that's what a lot of atheists anger tends to point out. Is it christian doctrine you
BlackxChild
New member
Just bc your atheist doesnt mean you have to believe in evolution...
Ajackson17;4742041 said:
I dislike the inconsistencies and contradictions within the actual teachings and writings. I hold sever distaste for how a lot of what is written in the bible is taken from other writings (Jesus being a blatant plagiarism of Horus of Egyptian lore, and the bible being the Torah + bullshit added). Couple that last part with this idea that their religion is the truest of them all, and it just becomes disgustingly dumb.
I dislike followers that do not look beyond their religion for answers most of all. People who shove their religion down your throat suck, but it is worse when someone is willingly ignorant and living their 21st century life based on a book written 2,000 years ago. It shows a lack of desire to progress, evolve, improve and advance not only one's self but those around them as well.
Ultimately Christianity has been responsible for a lot of terrible deeds ranging from the crusades to the protection of pedophiles, to the burning of countless books filled with near irreplaceable knowledge during the middle/dark ages. Followers of the religion have used their religion to justify terrible deeds and a common attack on atheism i have read is "Atheists do not want to have to answer to anyone for their actions. They want to be able to do whatever they want and live an immoral lifestyle." Yet there is an infinite number of Christians who do very immoral things regularly and some even try to justify it with their beliefs. This shows that the basis of doing good things does not rest on religious beliefs and illustrates a common hypocrisy.
Many Christians believe in their religion not because it spoke to them and they have gone out on a spiritual journey to find true answers to their problems and discover a path of righteousness and enlightenment that is factual but rather because they have been born into it and they are indoctrinated into it so that becomes what is superior to them. Basing religious superiority on that is biased and in my opinion stupid. They often possess little to no knowledge of other religions and hypocritically speak down on them when discussing them when there are innumerable flaws in their own. If one does not have personal experience of other religions how can they know theirs is truly superior or a better fit for themselves?
Reflecting back on that rant it does appear that i hate the followers more than the actual religion itself. I suppose one can only dislike the students for so long until the curriculum, the teachers and the institutions themselves become a source of resentment.
Last edited:
Ajackson17
New member
RodrigueZz;4746468 said:
I see you're reasoning with it and a lot of times, I see the bible and see common sense (we all know how common it really is) and I mean christinaity wasn't really in my house, my grandmother and mother believed in God, but I had to seek answers on my own and read and understand and that's how I came to it on the most part. I'm more of a self in-doctrine person than somebody telling me something and just believing in it. I walked and question and seek answers daily.
But it depends on how people view things and how they take it. A lot of times you see people are just here and now people and it sounds good than it must be good and leave it at that. So I think people who think outside the box, would question and would want to know more. So that's why I'm studying the bible in hebrew and trying to understand it myself. Like for example when Yahweh created the earth and universe in days it's, the word day can mean multiple of stuff and it has to be in context but it can mean manifestation our period of time. But it's really interesting how deep this book gets if you stop looking it at from just what it says and do not see the deepness and look at the other scriptures.
But I thank you for your answer and have I too have looked it at like that, but we always got to question and seek answers and understanding and wisdom. It's a must, the bible even says that, but people glance over it.
- Status
