simple poll for the Atheists

MagicMarker

Most 10 year olds are at least a foot shorter than me, are they vastly racially different than me?

kylith

Not to mention many Irish women. As I said previously, lots of Irish women are about 5' tall. Are they vastly racially different?

What's next? You're going to try say that because Norwegians are generally blond then they're vastly different racially, or are you only interested in people who have different coloured skin to you?

kylith

pacquiao wrote: »

If you think an average of 1 foot or more in height doesn't constitute a vast difference in a certain group,then what does? Are you just being pedantic for the sake of it? I think so. So by your thinking i can't say they are smaller at all. If you ran an insurance company you would be out of business very quickly.

You know what would be 'vastly different'? Not having bipedal locomotion. A occipital bun. No hyoid bone. Obvious ovulation. The ability to dorsi flex (bend their foot) over 50 degrees. Do you know of any races of human that are that different to Caucasians?

Being 'a bit shorter' is well within the norm of a species. My friend has a dog that is both shorter at the shoulder and weighs less than the norm for its breed. Would you say that it's vastly different to the rest of its breed, or just that it's a bit smaller?

Improbable

Happy to oblige Malty. The crux of the argument that pacquiao is trying to get at (as far as I can see), is that different "races" are socially different. What I don't understand is that if you're talking about a human idea like race, how are you tying that into evolution?

Scientifically speaking, there is no genetic reason for one race to be socially different than another race. The differences that a lay person would notice in terms of social and cultural behaviour are exactly that, social and cultural, not genetic. So in reality, it has nothing to do with evolution.

So if you mean in the context of "Why are you saying races aren't different if you believe in evolution?" The answer would be that racial differences between say you and pygmies would be that you grow up in different environments, exposed to different social and cultural influences.

Just to address another point for a minute, the variation displayed within humans is very little relatively speaking. Look at dogs. All dogs are part of the same species but the incredible amount of variation within dogs is something that humans simply do not have. Within dogs, you DO have genetic causes for differences between different breeds such as temperament etc. but that's because they have been selectively bred for millennia. Humans have not been selectively bred for a particular temperament or for selecting any particular trait other than what was useful for survival, which in the grand scheme of human evolution, has been vastly the same for all populations of current day human ancestors.

It's like comparing apples and oranges. On one level you're talking about changes in individuals but on the other, you're talking about grander genetic concepts such as genetic drift and overall population genetics versus social and cultural changes.

If this isn't the answer you were looking for, could you please clarify your question and exactly what you mean by race, what you mean by vast differences and why you think that people can believe in evolution while also believing that humans are vastly different from each other. And if you could also tie in how you are relating evolution to the concept of social and cultural behaviours that have nothing to do with genetics.

pacquiao

kylith wrote: »

Not to mention many Irish women. As I said previously, lots of Irish women are about 5' tall. Are they vastly racially different?

What's next? You're going to try say that because Norwegians are generally blond then they're vastly different racially, or are you only interested in people who have different coloured skin to you?

It says on average Irish women are small. Are they vastly racially different from whom? Who are you comparing them with?

Zombrex

pacquiao wrote: »

I haven't seen much rationality so far in this thread.

You are willfully and consistently ignoring perfectly valid points about genetic spread that are being put to you as rebuttals to your claims, so frankly you complaining about lack of rationality is hilarious.

pacquiao wrote: »

The rational so far is this. All people are the same regardless of where they have inhabited for thousands of years. It's idiotic.

The rational is not that all people are identical. That is obviously not the case.

The rational is that all people are (and please pay attention to this bit because it is the bit you keep ignoring or just not getting) equally different from each other.

If you take the entire human genome, not simply the arbitrary phenotypes you think are significant, a pygmy is as equally different to another pygmy as he is to a person in Holland.

Thus there is no significant measure or mark that one can divide the human species up into races. If you say the two pygmy men are the same race you could just as easily say that pygmy and the Dutch man are the same race simply by changing which phenotypes you arbitrarily decide to give significance to.

You appeared to get this point when you admitted that race is a social construct not a biological one, but then you retreated to more nonsensical ramblings about vast differences.

You can continue to ignore the point, but the more you do the more ridiculous your claims about no one being rational become. The only one acting irrational here is you by your consistently ignoring these pretty simple points, so if your goal was to make it out that you were highlighting irrational thinking you are doing a piss poor job at it.

kylith

pacquiao wrote: »

It says on average Irish women are small. Are they vastly racially different from whom? Who are you comparing them with?

Well, the only case you've put forward for Asians and Pygmies being vastly different from us is that they're shorter than average. I'm simply pointing out that many Irish women are about the same height as them, so doesn't that make your height issue moot? Do you have any other seemingly vast differences that you'd like more information about?

Zombrex

kylith wrote: »

Well, the only case you've put forward for Asians and Pygmies being vastly different from us is that they're shorter than average. I'm simply pointing out that many Irish women are about the same height as them, so doesn't that make your height issue moot? Do you have any other seemingly vast differences that you'd like more information about?

Clearly Irish women and pygmies are the same race. It is so obvious!

Sarky

pacquiao wrote: »

If you think an average of 1 foot or more in height doesn't constitute a vast difference in a certain group,then what does? Are you just being pedantic for the sake of it? I think so. So by your thinking i can't say they are smaller at all. If you ran an insurance company you would be out of business very quickly.

An average of one foot in height difference is a diet thing. You said as much yourself. If you'd been deprived of iodine growing up, you'd be pretty stumpy too. Most fat people aren't fat because they're different on some level from a skinny person. They're fat because they eat a lot of fatty foods. If a baby from a pygmy tribe was raised in a rich country where they had a diet rich in nutrients, they'd grow up to be taller and fatter. The only observation you can make is that pygmies tend to be shorter because of their diet.

Honestly, different hair or eye colour is a vaster difference between people than whatever they're eating. But nobody ever called for a pogrom against brunettes.

Are you trying to get at cultural difference? Nothing to do with genetics, or even people really. Cultures take on a life of their own, collective ideas and clashing mindsets produce a growing, changing set of values that people are raised to believe as true. Take a child born of Muslim parents and raise them in Norway as an agnostic. They'll grow up lacking belief in Allah. They'll probably think that Mohammed was a bit of a jerk. People create culture, but beyond a certain point, it creates them.

Rationally, the only difference worth talking about between any two humans that don't have some serious illness or hereditary disease is on tiny variations between otherwise highly similar genes. Genetic markers are useful for determining ancestry or estimating the likelihood of developing a genetic disorder, but they're not nearly different enough to count as any reason to generalise. People just aren't different enough from each other to do that, no matter where they're from. Ideas and cultures, maybe, but not people.

Furthermore, it's extremely unlikely that people will ever become different enough for the concept of race to apply the way people used to think it did. Maybe, if you isolated a continent of people from everyone else for ten million years, but failing the complete collapse of all modern transport and likely civilisation itself, that's not going to happen. Maybe, if our understanding of genetic manipulation allows for the tailoring of humans to adapt to radically different environments, such as zero-gravity or another planet. But if that's even possible (never mind ethical), it's too far off in the future to seriously discuss.

Sorry, the only differences between people are the result of cultural norms. The people themselves are universally extremely similar. Your argument doesn't hold up in any meaningful way.

mohawk

Sarky wrote: »

Your argument doesn't hold up in any meaningful way.

He doesn't have an argument.;)

I spent some time in San Francisco a few years back. They have a large established Asian population. The older population were quite small as they were born in mostly Korea or China but their children and grandchildren were be the same height as Americans from African and European backgrounds. Now the biochemist in me tells me that it is most likely diet that has resulted in the change in phenotype. Maybe that's just me and they have now evolved into a separate Asian-American race 'vastly' different from their ancestors.

Height, skin colour and any other phenotype you wish to pick on are not markers for genetic diversity in the context of evolution.

Turtwig

Woot, a biochemist, molecular biologist and neurobiologist the perfect ingredients towards our ultimate goal of world domination. Muwahahahah! ! !

Dades

I think someone's disappointed their fellow atheists don't subscribe to the nasty side of "Darwinism" that we get accused of every now and again.

corktina wrote: »

what a ridiculous thread...Not as ridiculous as Atheism and Agnosticism being listed under Religion & Spirituality though.

You don't think atheism and agnosticism are inextricably linked with religion?

recedite

Sarky wrote: »

If a baby from a pygmy tribe was raised in a rich country where they had a diet rich in nutrients, they'd grow up to be taller and fatter............ Take a child born of Muslim parents and raise them in Norway as an agnostic. They'll grow up lacking belief in Allah.

If the pygmy baby was raised as an agnostic in Norway, it most likely would grow up as an agnostic, but a very short one.

People seem to be seizing on the politically correct fact that no one racial characteristic is inherently exclusive to that race, while ignoring the fact that the frequency of the characteristics is what makes a "race".

So while its not impossible for a Pygmy or an Eskimo to win the 100 metres sprint in the next Olympic Games, I'm willing to bet anyone here €100 at 200;1 that they won't, and I'll bet the same amount at 20;1 that the winner will be African-American.
I voted "No" in the poll BTW, because I still don't consider that to be a "vast" difference.

kylith

recedite wrote: »

So while its not impossible for a Pygmy or an Eskimo to win the 100 metres sprint in the next Olympic Games, I'm willing to bet anyone here €100 at 200;1 that they won't, and I'll bet the same amount at 20;1 that the winner will be African-American.
I voted "No" in the poll BTW, because I still don't consider that to be a "vast" difference.

African, or an American with African ancestry?

recedite

I'm including Brazilians and Jamaicans and anyone living in the Americas who has some recent (the last 500 years) African ancestry.
Are you taking me up on the bet then?

ShooterSF

recedite wrote: »

I'm including Brazilians and Jamaicans and anyone living in the Americas who has some recent (the last 500 years) African ancestry.
Are you taking me up on the bet then?

I bet a lot of people have at least one ancestor in 500 years that was born in North America, South America or Africa!

Liamario

May I ask what the purpose of this thread is?

Zombrex

Liamario wrote: »

May I ask what the purpose of this thread is?

God only knows (har har), something about atheists pretending to be rational but not really being rational because they won't accept that there are differences between short Irish women and pygmies.

I really weep for the education standards of this country, I really do ...

recedite

ShooterSF wrote: »

I bet a lot of people have at least one ancestor in 500 years that was born in North America, South America or Africa!

OK, born in America, and descended from African slaves. Clear?

Liamario wrote: »

May I ask what the purpose of this thread is?

Not sure, but I think the gist of it is that if we were all descended from Adam and Eve, there would be no racial differences, or something.

Penn

Differences? Yes. Vast differences? No.

Difference between humans and people made out of clay and ribs? Yes.

nozzferrahhtoo

pacquiao wrote: »

I'm far from a troll,bail out of the discussion that's fine.

Nice, in one sentence you claim not to be a troll AND use one of the most trolling phrases there is... which is to bait people into returning to the conversation by suggesting they are bailing/retreating/running away.

pacquiao wrote: »

Take the Chinese for example. If i'm allowed to generalise, they are on average smaller than Europeans.

Maybe your issue that is causing all your confusion is a linguistic one. You used the word "vast". A race of humans that is "on average" slightly smaller is a difference. It is not a "vast" difference. Maybe the reason the results of the poll did not go the way you wanted/expected is less of an issue of evolution/atheism and more an issue with your own linguistic understanding of the word "vast".

pacquiao wrote: »

Well if you deny there is vast differences, then you are not an atheist at all.

And if you say you do not like the taste of apples then you are not a footballer. Or at least that is about as vast as the gulf containing in your complete non sequitur is in the above sentence and in this case "vast" is used accurately.

In fact the differences between the races is so slight compared to those in some other species that it has led people to say things like: If humans were dogs we would all be the same breed.

You have one color hair and the person beside you another and this is a small difference. If however it is the skin that is different and not the hair the difference suddenly becomes "vast". One wonders why this is.

Liamario

It's a loaded question really isn't it. The question is extremely ambiguous (no doubt intentionally), making the poll redundant and me wondering why the thread hasn't been locked.

seamus

A "vast" difference between two races would be the explicit non-existence of, for example, a finger, or the ability for all members of one race to ingest food via their anus.

A general tendency towards one or more characteristics wouldn't be "vast" IMO, especially when those characteristics also exist in the other "races".

Even dogs, arguably the most diverse species on the planet (because of artificial selection), I wouldn't say there are any "vast" differences between them. They differ in size and shape. But that's about it - otherwise they're functionally identical. You don't need a separate vet for your Collie and your Labrador.

robindch

Liamario wrote: »

wondering why the thread hasn't been locked.

As I mentioned yesterday, the OP was looking to promote racist views, possibly by connecting them in some way with acceptance of evolution and/or atheism + agnosticism.

Had the thread been closed, it would still be open to question whether or not the A+A and evolution-acccepting communities support these, or attempt to justify them from their beliefs. To say the least, there is no such support here, which is probably why pacquiao has disappeared, no doubt to seek greener pastures.

Unless some major debate arises subsequent to this post, I'll close this thread tomorrow morning.

Pacquiao -- do you have any closing comments you wish to make?

Broads.ie

So this may seem like an ignorant question but meh... are the differences between races of humans comparable to the differences between breeds of dogs? The difference between a Dalmation and a German Shepherd are superficial, they can still mate and produce healthy offspring together, much like different human races. Basically what I'm asking is, could you call the Chinese a different breed?

mikhail

Broads.ie wrote: »

So this may seem like an ignorant question but meh... are the differences between races of humans comparable to the differences between breeds of dogs? The difference between a Dalmation and a German Shepherd are superficial, they can still mate and produce healthy offspring together, much like different human races. Basically what I'm asking is, could you call the Chinese a different breed?

I don't think anyone uses that term for races, but sort of. The differences between breeds of dogs can be pretty substantial, as we've bred them intensively, but they're pretty much cosmetic. Actually, dogs and wolves are the same species, and can breed successfully. There isn't a community of human beings alive who are as different from me as a dog is from a wolf. And for that matter, neither is there one as different from me as a chihuahua from a wolfhound.

Galvasean

mikhail wrote: »

I don't think anyone uses that term for races, but sort of. The differences between breeds of dogs can be pretty substantial, as we've bred them intensively, but they're pretty much cosmetic. Actually, dogs and wolves are the same species, and can breed successfully. There isn't a community of human beings alive who are as different from me as a dog is from a wolf. And for that matter, neither is there one as different from me as a chihuahua from a wolfhound.

Note to self: when you seize power start an intensive breeding programme to create new breeds of human including giants and hobbits.

seamus

Broads.ie wrote: »

So this may seem like an ignorant question but meh... are the differences between races of humans comparable to the differences between breeds of dogs? The difference between a Dalmation and a German Shepherd are superficial, they can still mate and produce healthy offspring together, much like different human races. Basically what I'm asking is, could you call the Chinese a different breed?

Strictly speaking yes, but I imagine most people find it offensive to use the term "breed" in relation to humans.

As Galvasean alludes to, "breed" is more appropriate for a specific phenotype (?) that has been produced by selective breeding, whereas "race" would be more appropriate for a distinctive phenotype within a species that has come about through natural variation, isolation, etc.

The regional variations in human populations are evolutionary, no doubt about it. That's what evolution does. Small changes here and there for a long, long, time. None of the human races have been separated for more than a few hundred generations - at the absolute most - so haven't changed sufficiently that we would require a different type of doctor to work with chinese or irish people.

As I think everyone has pointed out, it all comes down to what an individual considers a "vast" difference. From an evolutionary POV (what the OP was looking to explore), a "vast" difference is one where one individual displays significant genetic differences to another. In evolutionary terms, this would cause the two individuals to be incapable of interbreeding. So humans and dogs are "vastly" different (but a lot less than you'd think), but two humans are not, regardless of what their phenotype produces.

Liamario

Galvasean wrote: »

Note to self: when you seize power start an intensive breeding programme to create new breeds of human including giants and hobbits.

Can I make a request for dwarves? :pac:

psychward

Liamario wrote: »

Can I make a request for dwarves? :pac:

I'll second that but only if the female ones have flat topped heads upon which a beer mug and remote control can sit easily without slipping.