Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

simple poll for the Atheists

24

Comments

  • #32
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    pacquiao wrote: »
    Have you ever heard of the the pygmies? There average height is around 4 foot 10 inches. Would you not call that a vast difference compared to the average person living in say Holland.
    Errr.. no.


  • #33
    GLaDOS
    Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 23,242 Mod ✭✭✭✭GLaDOS


    pacquiao wrote: »
    Would you not call that a vast difference compared to the average person living in say Holland.
    It's a difference, much like different coloured hair or skin. It's not like a tail or gills. I'm not overly familiar with the pygmys, but I'd guess they've been isolated for a significant amount of time, allowing for their unique characteristics.

    Cake, and grief counseling, will be available at the conclusion of the test



  • #34
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    pacquiao wrote: »
    Have you ever heard of the the pygmies? There average height is around 4 foot 10 inches. Would you not call that a vast difference compared to the average person living in say Holland.
    Nope. We can interbreed with them, therefore any genetic differences are negligable. Incidentally go to The Ladies Lounge and ask for a headcount of Irish women who are around 5' tall, there's an awful lot of them.

    Honestly, you sound like you're trying to use evolution and genetics to excuse racism.


  • #35
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    I know the OP only asked for atheist responses on this one, but I do feel agnostics should have a say too.

    Firstly, I would like to point out that the biology forum would have been a lot more suitable. The majority demographic here is software, IT, programming and the like. So, asking us questions about evolution does seem a little odd.

    The most obvious thing to consider is that in terms of evolution scales humans are only around for a minute or so. It seems a little bizarre to expect large amount of racial diversity when up until the last 500,000 years there was probably no more than 10,000 homosapiens around. And, within that single minute every single "race" has become intermingled so much as to ensure genetic diversity that no single race could possible end up being another species. Suppose it were different though. Suppose Africa and Europe were kept isolated for millions and millions of years then odds are you'd probably have two separate species on each continent. (Or one or both might be extinct.)


  • #36
    pacquiao
    Closed Accounts Posts: 465 ✭✭pacquiao


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Errr.. no.
    Wiki has a good peice about them.
    Pygmy men are mostly no taller than 4 foot 10 inches.
    The Pygmies are considered to be the largest group of mobile hunter–gatherers of Africa. They dwell in equatorial rainforests and are characterized by their short mean stature.

    Moreover, most Pygmy-like groups around the world dwell in tropical forests, and hence are likely to have iodine-deficient diets. The possibility that independent adaptations to an iodine-deficient diet might therefore have contributed to the convergent evolution of the short stature phenotype in Pygmy-like groups around the world deserves further investigation.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    pacquiao wrote: »
    Wiki has a good peice about them.
    Pygmy men are mostly no taller than 4 foot 10 inches.
    The Pygmies are considered to be the largest group of mobile hunter–gatherers of Africa. They dwell in equatorial rainforests and are characterized by their short mean stature.

    Moreover, most Pygmy-like groups around the world dwell in tropical forests, and hence are likely to have iodine-deficient diets. The possibility that independent adaptations to an iodine-deficient diet might therefore have contributed to the convergent evolution of the short stature phenotype in Pygmy-like groups around the world deserves further investigation.
    Yeah, still no.


  • #38
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


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


  • #39
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    pacquiao wrote: »
    Wiki has a good peice about them.
    Pygmy men are mostly no taller than 4 foot 10 inches.
    The Pygmies are considered to be the largest group of mobile hunter–gatherers of Africa. They dwell in equatorial rainforests and are characterized by their short mean stature.

    Moreover, most Pygmy-like groups around the world dwell in tropical forests, and hence are likely to have iodine-deficient diets. The possibility that independent adaptations to an iodine-deficient diet might therefore have contributed to the convergent evolution of the short stature phenotype in Pygmy-like groups around the world deserves further investigation.

    You are making the classic mistake of taking only one phenotype, one that humans tend to notice like skin colour or height, and focusing on that.

    In reality two people in Holland may be more genetically different than a Dutch person and a Pygmy, if you look at their entire genetic code.

    The truth is that while there are differences between humans there is not enough difference to separate humans into races based on genetics.

    The current theory for why this is is that approx. 70,000 years ago some event or events (scientists argue whether it as a single catastrophic event or a longer series of events) reduced the population of humans down to there were only 15,000 humans, that we have all descended from. There hasn't been enough time to evolve distinct sub-species of humans (or "races") from this tiny population.


  • #40
    pacquiao
    Closed Accounts Posts: 465 ✭✭pacquiao


    Malty_T wrote: »
    I know the OP only asked for atheist responses on this one, but I do feel agnostics should have a say too.

    Firstly, I would like to point out that the biology forum would have been a lot more suitable. The majority demographic here is software, IT, programming and the like. So, asking us questions about evolution does seem a little odd.

    The most obvious thing to consider is that in terms of evolution scales humans are only around for a minute or so. It seems a little bizarre to expect large amount of racial diversity when up until the last 500,000 years there was probably no more than 10,000 homosapiens around. And, within that single minute every single "race" has become intermingled so much as to ensure genetic diversity that no single race could possible end up being another species. Suppose it were different though. Suppose Africa and Europe were kept isolated for millions and millions of years then odds are you'd probably have two separate species on each continent. (Or one or both might be extinct.)
    I posted this is the correct forum. Changes happen far faster than what you are suggesting.People in this forum are trying to come across as rational and enlightened.


  • #41
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    I'm waiting for a train home and only have a little phone battery left. Can this thread please stay open until I can get to a proper computer? There's so much I need to rant about...


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    That you, Nck Griffin?


  • #43
    pacquiao
    Closed Accounts Posts: 465 ✭✭pacquiao


    Zombrex wrote: »
    You are making the classic mistake of taking only one phenotype, one that humans tend to notice like skin colour or height, and focusing on that.

    In reality two people in Holland may be more genetically different than a Dutch person and a Pygmy, if you look at their entire genetic code.

    The truth is that while there are differences between humans there is not enough difference to separate humans into races based on genetics.

    The current theory for why this is is that approx. 70,000 years ago some event or events (scientists argue whether it as a single catastrophic event or a longer series of events) reduced the population of humans down to there were only 15,000 humans, that we have all descended from. There hasn't been enough time to evolve distinct sub-species of humans (or "races") from this tiny population.
    You can say the same for 2 pygmy's.I'm talking in general.My meaning of the word race is a social construct,not a biological one. If i see a white person i call them white. I believe there to be vast differences between white and Pygmy's. That's a generalization. But it is correct isn't it?


  • #44
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    pacquiao wrote: »
    You can say the same for 2 pygmy's.I'm talking in general.My meaning of the word race is a social construct,not a biological one. If i see a white person i call them white. I believe there to be vast differences between white and Pygmy's. That's a generalization. But it is correct isn't it?
    If you're not talking about a biological construct then what has this got to do with evolution?


  • #45
    pacquiao
    Closed Accounts Posts: 465 ✭✭pacquiao


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    If you're not talking about a biological construct then what has this got to do with evolution?
    I live in the present? Evolution has happened.


  • #46
    Duke Leonal Felmet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭Duke Leonal Felmet


    Race is a human construct.


  • #47
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    pacquiao wrote: »
    I live in the present? Evolution has happened.

    Evolution is still happening today in humans.


  • #48
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    pacquiao wrote: »
    I believe there to be vast differences between white and Pygmy's. That's a generalization. But it is correct isn't it?
    Yes, but the differences do not derive from "whites" and "pygmies" being from different "races". That kind of supremacist rubbish died out in most enlightened places years ago.

    Just a friendly moderator-warning too:

    You're currently walking a fine line between a glib pretense of free inquiry and an attempt to promote racism. The latter isn't going to work in this forum, and that's the one reason this thread is still open. If you overstep that line however, this thread will be shut down and you will be booted from this forum permanently.


  • #49
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    robindch wrote: »
    Yes, but the differences do not derive from "whites" and "pygmies" being from different "races". That kind of supremacist rubbish died out in most enlightened places years ago.

    Just a friendly moderator-warning too:

    You're currently walking a fine line between a glib pretense of free inquiry and an attempt to promote racism. The latter isn't going to work in this forum, and that's the one reason this thread is still open. If you overstep that line however, this thread will be shut down and you will be booted from this forum permanently.

    I hope this isn't seen as questioning a mod, but I would very much like to see a microbiologist or neurobiologists takes on this whole issue before you shut this thread out. Please, please, please wait for Sarky or Improbable to provide a comprehensive debunking of these misconceptions. If, of course, they are willing. :)


  • #50
    pacquiao
    Closed Accounts Posts: 465 ✭✭pacquiao


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Evolution is still happening today in humans.
    Of course it is. People are constantly changing.


  • #51
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    pacquiao wrote: »
    I'm talking in general.My meaning of the word race is a social construct,not a biological one.

    Race was always meant to be taken as a biological construct.
    pacquiao wrote: »
    If i see a white person i call them white. I believe there to be vast differences between white and Pygmy's. That's a generalization. But it is correct isn't it?

    Correct in what sense?

    You subconsciously pick out particularly differences and ignore other ones based on your own internal biases, nothing to do with the two people you are comparing. As you say you classify based on skin colour. You probably don't classify on size of big toe.

    Thus you will think a white person and a black person are different "races" even if they actually share far more characteristics than ones that separate them and are actually more similar than two white people.

    Thus differences in race become arbitrary, it speaks more to what humans notice than to any actual differences between an African and a European or Asian.

    So I'm not sure what you mean by "correct"

    You and most humans certainly do this, but it has little if anything to do with whether there are actually differences between humans that can be used to classify humans into sub sets. And like I said race was always meant to be taken as a biological construct. By admitting that it is in fact only a social one you are effectively agreeing it has not meaning or mapping to reality.

    Perhaps you should just come out and state your thesis rather than trying to dance around the point. A lot of people seem to think you are trying to push a racist agenda. I actually suspect that you are trying to show that atheists and evolutionists have to be racist as a natural extension of belief in evolution.

    Either way your habit of posting ignorant posts that you seem to present some sort of "got-cha" and then ignoring the reasoned responses to the posts is becoming some what tiresome.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    pH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    pacquiao wrote: »
    I live in the present? Evolution has happened.

    You may well live in the present, but you appear to be hinting that your views on this topic are from 100 years in the past.


  • #53
    pacquiao
    Closed Accounts Posts: 465 ✭✭pacquiao


    robindch wrote: »
    Yes, but the differences do not derive from "whites" and "pygmies" being from different "races". That kind of supremacist rubbish died out in most enlightened places years ago.
    Of course not.The differences derive from their environments.If you evolved in a certain environment over thousands of years and in doing so made you different in some way. In this case very small.
    Are you telling me i can't generalize based on the above?


  • #54
    GLaDOS
    Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 23,242 Mod ✭✭✭✭GLaDOS


    pacquiao wrote: »
    In this case very small.
    Which is why we're saying there isn't any vast differences :)

    Cake, and grief counseling, will be available at the conclusion of the test



  • #55
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    pacquiao wrote: »
    Of course not.The differences derive from their environments.If you evolved in a certain environment over thousands of years and in doing so made you different in some way. In this case very small.
    Are you telling me i can't generalize based on the above?

    It is a free country pacquiao, you can generalize based on anything you like. You can say all bald people are the same race if you want to. You can say that all people named Mary are the same race.

    You shouldn't expect anyone to take you seriously though.

    What the heck does this have to do with atheism and people calling themselves atheists btw?


  • #56
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    Zombrex wrote: »
    It is a free country pacquiao, you can generalize based on anything you like. You can say all bald people are the same race if you want to. You can say that all people named Mary are the same race.

    You shouldn't expect anyone to take you seriously though.

    What the heck does this have to do with atheism and people calling themselves atheists btw?

    As far as I can tell, the thought process runs thus:

    -Atheists believe in evolution
    -> Atheists are rational people
    -> Atheists should accept my juvenile and wrong-headed understanding of evolution
    -> This supports my position rationally.


  • #57
    pacquiao
    Closed Accounts Posts: 465 ✭✭pacquiao


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    As far as I can tell, the thought process runs thus:

    -Atheists believe in evolution
    -> Atheists are rational people
    -> Atheists should accept my juvenile and wrong-headed understanding of evolution
    -> This supports my position rationally.

    I haven't seen much rationality so far in this thread. The rational so far is this. All people are the same regardless of where they have inhabited for thousands of years. It's idiotic. If this is the line of thought then I would say you're just as irrational as Christians and Muslims for believing in a god.


  • #58
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    pacquiao wrote: »
    I haven't seen much rationality so far in this thread. The rational so far is this. All people are the same regardless of where they have inhabited for thousands of years. It's idiotic. If this is the line of thought then I would say you're just as irrational as Christians and Muslims for believing in a god.

    Your own reasoning seems to be that it doesn't matter how genetically similar people are if they're superficially different.


  • #59
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    pacquiao wrote: »
    I haven't seen much rationality so far in this thread. The rationale so far is this: All people are the same regardless of where they have inhabited for thousands of years.
    Biologically and genetically, yes, they are. I could go to one of the lost tribes of the Amazon and get impregnated by one of the men there. The child would be as viable as if I'd conceived it with someone from Dublin so there are no differences between humans just because they've been seperated for a geographically insignificant period of time.

    Culturally they may be quite different, but that doesn't effect, and isn't affected by, evolution.
    It's idiotic.
    Well, aren't you just charming?
    If this is the line of thought then I would say you're just be as irrational as Christians and Muslims for believing in a god.
    So, enlighten us with your rationality. Do you have any reason other than "Pygmies, eh? They're a bit short. I bet they're hugely different to us. Or the asians, they're short too" to think that the various physical differences between peoples are anything more than skin deep?


  • #60
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    pacquiao, how are you defining "race"?
    If you believe it's a genetic thing, please explain at what point races diverge from each other.
    If you believe that it's something other than genetics, what exactly is your point as then race would have nothing to do with evolution?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    pacquiao
    Closed Accounts Posts: 465 ✭✭pacquiao


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    Your own reasoning seems to be that it doesn't matter how genetically similar people are if they're superficially different.
    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.


Advertisement