>>110
Actually, I have. But if you do comments like:
it really shouldn't matter if I'm actually trolling or actually trying to have a debate.
I'm turned off by it and it's a sign you don't give a shit and that you'll stick to your politically correct teachings no matter what, and you don't seem to have the interest Such one sided debates are useless. Since you only pasted your (or worse, someone else's) replies, I'm not interested in what others might have said and I'll take it all as yours. Reasonable since you didn't paste the context. Let's go:
34:
An indentifiable haplotype, to me, doesn't constitute the existence of a different biological "race".
D'oh. Your point being? Are you saying every haplotype should constitute a different race? What the fuck? No one has ever claimed that a haplotype = a race. LOL. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about do you? There are (to my knowledge at least) 153 haplogroups and thus much more haplotypes.
Plus, I've seen zero evidence that states these haplotypes have an absolute tie-in to intelligence.
So? Haplotypes are irrelevant to this discussion for now.
The differences in intelligence that you continue to imply would only be genetically related if these haplotypes were indications of a seprate speicies.
Aha. I don't get what you're saying, but it has no bearing in reality. Look up what 'species,' 'race,' 'haplotype,' and 'haplogroup' mean please.
That is not the case.
Of course it isn't. What separate species? LOL.
I feel like I need answer this further, together with one of your earlier comments:
That's nice. Is she 100% white? (PROTIP: She's not and neither are you.)
Ugh, you're arguing about minutiae about haplotype diversity as being a rebuttal of the existence of race? Or do you even argue that? What are you on about? Particular haplotypes (or even more sensibly haplogroups) do not separate races like you think. You seem to discard evolution and think that haplotype/haplogroup diversity proves racial mixing -- showing that you have no clue of what they are. Protip: It's supposed to be this way. Or you think that alien haplogroup variation prove significant racial mixing? But that goes against your saying that there aren't any races. You're not fooling anyone intelligent with your neo-Marxist sophistry used for the fooling of uneducated masses. Does a few percent admixture make any significant difference and is sufficient for the abolition of the racial classification? No. In fact, saying people are in the slight racially mixed just further proves races. And let's give a bigger example. Does 20% white admixture in American blacks make them indistinguishable from white Americans -- both in appearance and social statistics? No.
As I see from your other "arguments", you would accept the term "race" only if people from the same race looked 100% the same. Something like this doesn't exist in the animal world.
Moreover, you and I and other modern day human "races" exist as subsets to these haplotypes. Any variation of haplotypes is variation that was already present in ancient homosapiens. Seeing as how Africans were the first to civilize in the most basic sense...I don't see where you get the leap from haplotypes to the definition of biological race and then one race being "better" at civilization than the other. I think your understanding of what the Hap-Map implies is way off and I think you are purposely ignoring history to protect your world view.
You are obviously not replying this to me, and I fail to see the exact context but it seems you need a lesson.
All human races/subraces have unique haplogroups and usually come from a common male ancestor. Some human populations are so different that there is virtually no overlap in many physical characteristics - compare a Pygmy with a Montenegrin, or an Eskimo with a Nilote, for example.
Clines and gradients came into being as a result of a geographical isolation followed by "de-isolation" and renewed contacts with other human groups. Traits are gradually changing, because people, who left the geographically isolated areas mixed with people from other formerly isolated areas. This proves that they are races of a single species.
Race can now be genetically determined with 100% accuracy.
For example, if you take a substantial number of loci, their combinations that you will get create very unique clusters and there are no marked overlaps between single racial groups. You can find mixed populations on the racial borders, but the racial core is fairly pure and thus the right classification based on them approaches 100%. Race is a significant bareer of gene flow even if there are no geographical barriers.
http://genetics.plosjournals.org/archive/1553-7404/1/6/pdf/10.1371_journal.pgen.0010070-S.pdf
http://www.as.wvu.edu/~dray/Papers/Witherspoon_et_al_2006_-_LINEs_and_human_populations.pdf
Race is basically an extended form of a family, a group of genetically related people, who - due to long intermixing in geographical isolation - share some distinct traits in far higher frequencies than other groups. The traditional racial classification is in an agreement with this definition and we can now improve it with the help of modern genetics.
The Europoid racial stock stems from such a distinct "family" created by a man bearing Y-haplogroup F and a woman with mtDNA haplogroup N, who lived somewhere in the Middle East (perhaps in Iran or Mesopotamia) ca. 50 000 years ago. All populations traditionally classified into the Europoid race bear these haplogroups in high frequencies. Similarly, black-skinned populations of South Asia (Australoids) were created by another "founding pair" with male lineage C and female lineage M. Mongoloids are actually cold-adapted Australoids from Southern Siberia, who absorbed some Europoid groups in East Asia.
Mixtures during glacial and post-glacial times were not rare, however. American Indians are basically a variable Europoid-Mongoloid mixture, while Ainu are fundamentally Europoids with some Australoid admixture. Polynesians are not Mongoloids, but Europoids partly mixed with Australoid negritos.
Local racial sub-groups can be defined as well, although some of them came into being as late as after the Ice Age, when the homogenous and clearly genetically defined refugial groups started to mix, and hence they may be characterized by more (and more subtle) haplogroups.
Sub-Saharan Africans should be classified into four main racial groups and one mixed one, which is in agreement with the haplogroup distribution.
1) Khoisans (A + L0K/L0d)
2) Nilotes (A3b2 + L0f?)
3) Pygmies (B + L1/L2)
4) Somalis (or "Neonegrids", how I call them) (E/E3b1+L3)
5) West Africans (NeonegridxPygmy mixture) + Bantus (further mixtures of West Africans with local African groups)
Earlier points should serve as a reply to the rest.
35:
Can you tell me why the Greenland Norse civilization "failed"? Was that genetic? Ok, well, prove it. Prove that the failure of any one civilization is solely genetic. You're the one making these assertions- not me- so "the burden of proof" is on you, isn't it?
I do not claim that the failure of a civilisation is solely genetic, and I doubt the person you spoke to but didn't even have the decency to paste his original message (which I don't care about anymore) ... so I should reply to this why? Mongoloid argument too.
If you don't have the proof the percieved failure of a civilization was absolutely genetic, then you have no basis for your assertion.
Aha. What assertion? You didn't bother to paste it, retard. Also, see earlier point, I do not claim this, and I don't care what the other person said since you didn't bother to paste it yet flashed these posts as the grand rebuttal to races.
You entire argument is based on the idea that any one "white civilization" has been "successful". Why do you not tell us what makes a "successful" civilization? Why so vague?
You gotta love how leftists try to deconstruct entire terms and concepts. This is too retarded to even answer. But to answer your question: g. You can correlate it with civilizations quite well, I gather.
European "civilization" is the most unstable in history. Its entire history is made up of wars upon wars, violent upheavals and unparalleled atrocities.
Ahahaha.
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
:-)