[whyumadtho]

CREATIONISM IS REAL. LOOK AT ALL HIS REFERENCES!! FORGET PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS! IT IS AN ATHEIST CONSPIRACY!!!!!!

[Pyramidologist]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
They are books and websites.

You've demonstrated on repeated occasions your inability to refute my arguments.

Websites and books which list peer-reviewed sources. I don't need to post them here when they are already listed, you can just look.

Sesardic (2010) which i posted earlier includes countless sources (again which you can check on PDF, you appear to be very lazy).

Sesardic, N. (2010). “Race: a social destruction of a biological concept.” Biology and Philosophy 25(2): 143-162.

All your arguments have been refuted.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
Websites and books which list peer-reviewed sources. I don't need to post them here when they are already listed, you can just look.

Sesardic (2010) which i posted earlier includes countless sources (again which you can check on PDF, you appear to be very lazy).

Sesardic, N. (2010). “Race: a social destruction of a biological concept.” Biology and Philosophy 25(2): 143-162.

All your arguments have been refuted.

I've already addressed Sesardic and that article has been refuted by another author in the same journal a few months later.

It's funny that you see my peer-reviewed sources as invalid and subject to bias, but rely on peer-reviewed sources yourself to support the validity of any given article. They are either all unreliable or they aren't: pick one and stick with it.

EVIDENCE THAT THE EARTH IS 6000 YEARS OLD:

Spoiler:

Show

1. Ackerman, Paul D., In God's Image After All (Baker Book House, 1990), 101 pp.
2. Ackerman, Paul D., It's a young World After All (Baker Book House, 1986), 131 pp.
3. Andrews, Edgar H., Concepts in Creationism (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1994).
4. Andrews, Edgar H., From Nothing to Nature (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1978), 120 pp.
5. Andrews, Edgar H., Christ and the Cosmos (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1986), 128 pp.
6. Andrews, Edgar H., God, Science and Evolution (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980), 129 pp.
7. Austin, Steven A., ed., Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe (Institute for Creation Research, 1994)
8. Austin, Steven A., ed., Catastrophes in Earth History (Institute for Creation Research, 1984)
9. Baker, Mace, Dinosaurs (Bible Science Association, 1995).
10. Barnes, Thomas G., Science and Biblical Faith ( Creation Research Society, 1993), 191 pp.
11. Barnes, Thomas G., Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field ( Creation Research Society, 1983), 132 pp.
12. Bartz, Paul A., Creation Moments (Bible Science Association, 1990), 260 pp.
13. Bartz, Paul A., Letting God Create Your Day (Bible Science Association, 1991), 267 pp.
14. Bartz, Paul A., ed., Influencing Our Children: Darwin's Impact on Education (Bible Science Association, 1992) 213 pp.
15. Bergman, Jerry and George Howe, Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional (Creation Research Society, 1990), 97 pp.
16. Bird, Wendell R., The Origin of Species Revisited (Thomas Nelson Co., 1989), 2 vols., 1149 pp.
17. Bliss, Richard B., Duane T. Gish and Gary E. Parker, Fossils: Key to the Present (Master Books, 1980), 81 pp.
18. Bliss, Richard B., Voyage to the Stars (Institute for Creation Research, 1991), 111 pp.
19. Bliss, Richard B., and Donald DeYoung, Voyage to the Planets (Institute for Creation Research, 1994), 128 pp.
20. Bliss, Richard B., Origins: Creation or Evolution (Master Books, 1988), 76 pp.
21. Boys, Don, Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith (Freedom Publications, 1994), 352 pp.
22. Brown, Walter T., In the Beginning (Center for Scientific Creation, 1989), 122 pp.
23. Camping, Harold, Adam When? (Frontiers for Christ, 1974), 297 pp.
24. Chittick, Donald, The Controversy (Multnomah Press, 1984), 280 pp.
25. Coffin, Harold, Origin by Design (Review and Herald, 1983), 494 pp.
26. Cooper, Bill, After the Flood (Creation Science Movement, 1995), 250 pp.
27. Cousins, Frank, Fossil Man (Creation Science Movement, 1971), 138 pp.
28. Culp, Richard, Remember Thy Creator (Historic Christian Publications East, 1990), 207 pp.
29. Curtis, Wm. R., The Gospel Prior to Moses (Brentwood Christian Press, 1993), 155 pp.
30. DeYoung, Donald B., Astronomy and the Bible (Baker Book House, 1989), 146 pp.
31. DeYoung, Donald B., Science and the Bible (Baker Book House, 1994), 110 pp.
32. Dickson, Roger E., The Fall of Unbelief (Apologetics Press, 1982), 571 pp.
33. Dillow, Joseph, The Waters Above (Institute for Creation Research, 1982), 479 pp.
34. Frair, Wayne and Percival Davis, A Case for Creation (Moody Press, 1983), 155 pp.
35. Gentry, Robert, Creation's Tiny Mystery (Earth Science Associates, 1986), 315 pp.
36. Gish, Duane T., The Amazing Story of Creation (Institute for Creation Research, 1990), 112 pp.
37. Gish, Duane T., Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!, 391 pp.
    Formerly: Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record (Master Books, 1985), 277 pp.
38. Gish, Duane T., Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics (Institute for Creation Research, 1993), 451 pp.
39. Gish, Duane T., and Henry M. Morris, The Battle for Creation (Institute for Creation Research, 1976), 321 pp.
40. Gish, Duane T., Dinosaurs by Design (Master Books, 1992), 88 pp.
41. Gitt, Werner, Did God Use Evolution? (Hanssler-Verlag, 1993), 152 pp.
42. Ham, Ken, Genesis and the Decay of the Nations (Master Books, 1991), 81 pp.
43. Ham, Ken, The Lie: Evolution (Master Books, 1987), 168 pp.
44. Ham, Ken, Andrew Snelling and Carl Weiland, The Answers Book (Master Books, 1991), 140 pp.
45. Helfinstine, Robert F. and Jerry D. Roth, Texas Tracts and Artifacts (Bible Science Association, 1994), 109 pp.
46. Howe, George F., ed., Speak to the Earth ( Creation Research Society, 1975), 463 pp.
47. Humphreys, D. Russell, Starlight and Time (Master Books, 1994), 133 pp.
48. Huse, Scott, Collapse of Evolution (Baker Book House, 1983), 178 pp.
49. ICC Procedings: 1986 (2 vols., Creation Science Fellowship, 1987), 446 pp.
50. ICC Procedings: 1990 (2 vols., Creation Sience Fellowship, 1991), 612 pp.
51. ICC Procedings: 1994 (Creation Science Fellowship, 1995), 645 pp.
52. Johnson, Wallace, Evolution? (Tan Books and Publishers, 1976), 138 pp.
53. Keane, G.J., Creation Rediscovered (Credis Pty, Ltd., 1991), 302 pp.
54. Lammerts, Walter E., ed., Scientific Studies in Special Creation ( Creation Research Society, 1971), 343 pp.
55. Lammerts, Walter E., ed., Why Not Creation? ( Creation Research Society, 1970), 388 pp.
56. Leupold, Herbert C., Genesis, Chs 1-19 (Baker Book House, 1949), 576 pp.
57. Lester, Lane P. and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change (Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 207 pp.
58. Lubenow, Marvin, Bones of Contention (Baker Book House, 1992), 295 pp.
59. Manley, Isaac V., God Made (College Press Publ. Co., 1994), 209 pp.
60. Marsh, Frank L., Variation and Fixity in Nature (Pacific Press, 1976), 150 pp.
61. Martin, Jobe, The Evolution of a Creationist (Biblical Discipleship Publishers, 1994), 203 pp.
62. Morris, Henry M., The Beginning of the World (Master Books, 1991), 181 pp.
63. Morris, Henry M., The Remarkable Record of Job (Baker Book House, 1988), 146 pp.
64. Morris, Henry M., The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Baker Book House, 1986), 516 pp.
65. Morris, Henry M., Scientific Creationism (Master Books, 1985), 281 pp.
66. Morris, Henry M., The Long War Against God (Baker Book House, 1989), 344 pp.
67. Morris, Henry M., Many Infallible Proofs (Master Books, 1974), 381 pp.
68. Morris, Henry M., Science and the Bible (Moody Press, 1986), 154 pp.
69. Morris, Henry M., The God Who is Real (Baker Book House, 1988) 96 pp.
70. Morris, Henry M., The Genesis Record (Baker Book House, 1976), 716 pp.
71. Morris, Henry M., Biblical Creationism (Baker Book House, 1993), 276 pp.
72. Morris, Henry M., The Revelation Record (Tyndale Publishing House, 1983), 528 pp.
73. Morris, Henry M., Creation and the Second Coming (Master Books, 1991), 194 pp.
74. Morris, Henry M., Men of Science - Men of God (Master Books, 1988), 107 pp.
75. Morris, Henry M., Christian Education for the Real World (Master Books, 1991), 295 pp.
76. Morris, Henry M., Twilight of Evolution ( Baker Book House, 1963), 103 pp.
77. Morris, Henry M., History of Modern Creationism (Institute for Creation Research, 1993), 444 pp.
78. Morris, Henry M., and Martin E. Clark, The Bible Has the Answer (Master Books, 1987), 394 pp.
79. Morris, John D., and Henry M. Morris, Science, Scripture and the Young Earth (Institute for Creation Research, 1989), 95 pp.
80. Morris, John D., The Young Earth (Master Books, 1994), 206 pp.
81. Mulfinger, George, ed., Design and Origins in Astronomy Creation Research Society, 1983), 151 pp.
82. Nelson, Ethel R. and C.H. Kang, Discoveries in Genesis (Concordia Publishing House, 1979), 139 pp.
83. Nelson, Ethel R. and Richard E. Broadberry, Genesis and the Mystery Confucius Couldn't Solve (Concordia Publishing House, 1994), 174 pp.
84. Oakland, Roger, G.S. McLean and L. McLean, The Evidence of Creation (1988), 185 pp.
85. Oakland, Roger, and Caryl Matrisciana, The Evolution Conspiracy (Harvest House, 1991), 216 pp.
86. Oard, Michael, An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood (Institute for Creation Research, 1990), 243 pp.
87. Overton, Basil, Evolution in the Light of Scripture, Science and Sense (Apologetics Press, 1988), 165 pp.
88. Parker, Gary, Creation: Facts of Life (Master Books, 1994), 215 pp.
89. Parker, Gary and Henry M. Morris, What is Creation Science? (Master Books, 1987), 363 pp.
90. Pearcey, Nancy R. and Charles B. Thaxton, The Soul of Science (Bible Science Association, 1994), 349 pp.
91. Remine, Walter James, The Biotic Message (St. Paul Science, 1993), 538 pp.
92. Rohrer, Donald H. and Henry M. Morris, The Decade of Creation (Institute for Creation Research, 1980), 316 pp.
93. Rosevear, David, Creation Science (New Wine Press, 1991), 158 pp.
94. Rusch, Wibert H., The Argument: Creationism vs. Evolutionism ( Creation Research Society, 1984), 87 pp.
95. Rybka, Theodore W., Geophysical and Astronomical Clocks (American Writing and Publishing Co., 1993), 134 pp.
96. Sharp, G. Thomas, Science According to Moses (Creation Truth Publ., 1992), 442 pp.
97. Sharp, Douglas, Revoltuion Against Evolution (Bible Science Assoc. 1993), 107 pp.
98. Sippert, Albert, Evolution is Not Scientific (Sippert Publ. Co., 1995), 466 pp.
99. Slusher, Harold S. The Origin of the Universe (Institute for Creation Research, 1980), 90 pp.
100. Slusher, Harold S. and Steven G. Robertson, The Age of the Solar System (Institute for Creation Research, 1982), 131 pp.
101. Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma (Master Books, 1984), 177 pp.
102. Taylor, Charles V., The Oldest Science Book in the World (Assembly Press, 1984), 142 pp.
103. Taylor, Ian, In the Minds of Men (TFE Publishing, 1984), 498 pp.
104. Taylor, Paul and Ken Ham, The Genesis Solution (Baker Book House, 1988), 126 pp.
105. Taylor, Paul S., The Illustrated Origins Answer Book (Films for Christ, 1990), 128 pp.
106. Taylor, Paul and Mark Van Bebber, Creation and Time (Films for Christ, 1994), 128 pp.
107. Thompson, Bert, Creation Compromises (Apologetics Press, 1995), 303 pp.
108. Vardiman, Larry, Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth (Institute for Creation Research, 1993), 87 pp.
109. Von Fange, Erich A., Helping Children Understand Genesis and the Dinosaur (Living Word Services, 1992), 208 pp.
110. Von Fange, Erich A., Genesis and the Dinosaur (Living Word Services, 1990), 311 pp.
111. Von Fange, Erich A., Noah to Abram: The Turbulent Years (Living Word Services, 1994), 372 pp.
112. Watson, David C., Myths and Miracles (Creation Science Foundation, 1988), 118 pp.
113. Whitcomb, John C., The World that Perished (Baker Book House, 1988), 178 pp.
114. Whitcomb, John C., The Early Earth (Baker Book House,1986), 174 pp.
115. Whitcomb, John C., and Donald B. DeYoung, The Moon (BMH Books, 1978), 180 pp.
116. Whitcomb, John C., and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (Presbyterian and Reformed Publ. Co., 1961), 518 pp.
117. Whitcomb, Norma, Those Mysterious Dinosaurs (Presbyterian and Reformed Publ Co., 1991), 115 pp.
118. White, A.J. Monty, How Old is the Earth? (Presbyterian and Reformed), 126 pp.
119. White, A.J. Monty, Wonderfully Made (Presbyterian and Reformed), 128 pp.
120. Wilder-Smith, A.E., The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (Master Books, 1981), 185 pp.
121. Wilder-Smith, A.E., He Who Thinks Has to Believe (Bethany House, 1981), 94 pp.
122. Wilder-Smith, A.E., The Creation of Life (Master Books, 1970), 251 pp.
123. Wilder-Smith, A.E., Man's Origin. Man's Destiny (Bible Science Association, 1968), 320 pp.
124. Wilder-Smith, A.E., Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory (TWFT Publ., 1987), 198 pp.
125. Williams, Emmett L., Thermodynamics and the Development of Order ( Creation Research Society, 1981), 141 pp.
126. Willis, Tom, Real Scientists Just Say NO! (Mid-America Creation Science Association, 1993), 110 pp.
127. Wilson, Clifford, Visual Highlights of the Bible: From Adam to Abraham (Pacific Christian Ministries, 1993), 147 pp.
128. Woodmorappe, John, Studies in Flood Geology (Institute for Creation Research, 1993), 208 pp.
129. Woodmorappe, John, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study (Institute for Creation Research, 1996), approx. 300 pp.
130. Wysong, Randy, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (Inquiry Press, 1976), 455 pp.

DON'T TRY TO REFUTE ME WITH ACTUAL EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT IS ALL ATHEISTIC LEFTY SOCIALIST COMMUNIST LIBERAL QUACK LOON FRINGE HIPPIE GARBAGE!!!! PEER-REVIEW = SATAN'S MINIONS!!!

THE REAL EVIDENCE IS IN BOOKS THAT REMAIN UNCORRUPTED BY PC ATHEIST NONSENSE!!!!!

[Pyramidologist]

whyumadtho has presented no valid reason why races don't exist. If you look pages back in other threads he has also claimed:

species don't exist

ethnicities don't exist

Go back a few pages and he also claims genera, phyla and domains don't exist either. Nor objects either. Yes you read correct, physical objects don't exist by his ''everything is arbitrary'' spams. An empty glass thus cannot be identified with another glass, nor can a harry potter book with another copy because that would be a non-concordant and arbitrary...

You've demonstrated on repeated occasions your inability to refute my arguments.

Your arguments are refuted before you even type them - they are retarded, and you are just posting them for a reaction over the internet. Nonsurprisingly you are the only user on this forum claiming ''everything is arbitrary'' and doesn't exist from culture, species to objects, perhaps that makes you feel special holding extreme tin foil denialist views no one else does? The truth is though off your computer you don't hold these views, you just hold them over the net to spark a reaction and to get attention.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
whyumadtho has presented no valid reason why races don't exist. If you look pages back in other threads he has also claimed:





Go back a few pages and he also claims genera, phyla and domains don't exist either. Nor objects either. Yes you read correct, physical objects don't exist by his ''everything is arbitrary'' spams. An empty glass thus cannot be identified with another glass, nor can a harry potter book with another copy because that would be a non-concordant and arbitrary...



Your arguments are refuted before you even type them - they are retarded, and you are just posting them for a reaction over the internet. Nonsurprisingly you are the only user on this forum claiming ''everything is arbitrary'' and doesn't exist from culture, species to objects, perhaps that makes you feel special holding extreme tin foil denialist views no one else does? The truth is though off your computer you don't hold these views, you just hold them over the net to spark a reaction and to get attention.

Still deflecting? You are unable to demonstrate any of those things are not social constructs, which is why you are persistently avoiding the actual arguments. You haven't actually refuted any particular claim I've made; for the last few pages you've merely been testing how far I go with my logic (because you know it makes logical sense and invalidates any claim that the nomenclatorial systems are objective). Now that you see I apply my logic universally you are now resorting to the pathetic claim that my sources are biassed or I am making nonsensical arguments (despite not being able to refute them).

[democracyforum]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Still deflecting? You are unable to demonstrate any of those things are not social constructs, which is why you are persistently avoiding the actual arguments. You haven't actually refuted any particular claim I've made; for the last few pages you've merely been testing how far I go with my logic (because you know it makes logical sense and invalidates any claim that the nomenclatorial systems are objective). Now that you see I apply my logic universally you are now resorting to the pathetic claim that my sources are biassed or I am making nonsensical claims (despite not being able to refute them).

Historically, the Irish were considered different.

''
In 1996, Francis A. Boyle, a law professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, wrote a report commissioned by the New York-based Irish Famine/Genocide Committee, which concluded that the British government deliberately pursued a race and ethnicity-based policy aimed at destroying the group commonly known as the Irish people and that the policy of mass starvation amounted to genocide per the Hague convention of 1948''

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by democracyforum)
Historically, the Irish were considered different.

''
In 1996, Francis A. Boyle, a law professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, wrote a report commissioned by the New York-based Irish Famine/Genocide Committee, which concluded that the British government deliberately pursued a race and ethnicity-based policy aimed at destroying the group commonly known as the Irish people and that the policy of mass starvation amounted to genocide per the Hague convention of 1948''

I don't understand how this pertains to my post.

[Pyramidologist]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Still deflecting? You are unable to demonstrate any of those things are not social constructs, which is why you are persistently avoiding the actual arguments. You haven't actually refuted any particular claim I've made; for the last few pages you've merely been testing how far I go with my logic (because you know it makes logical sense and invalidates any claim that the nomenclatorial systems are objective). Now that you see I apply my logic universally you are now resorting to the pathetic claim that my sources are biassed or I am making nonsensical arguments (despite not being able to refute them).

Phylogenetics and biogeography debunks your racial denial. That is why you never adress these points. Your racial denial is based entirely on monophyletism and the OOA, or the single replacement theory. So you set up an a priori yourself (epic fail). Species and subspecies (races) are not social constructs as they are of discrete lineages. A 5 year old can go into their back garden and realise the reality that bees and ants are seperate. Yet according to you, both of these are ''social constructs''. As I said, your views are not rooted in reality, they are rooted in using the internet to post a kooky position for attention - its makes you feel special as only you hold such views.

[Pyramidologist]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Still deflecting? You are unable to demonstrate any of those things are not social constructs, which is why you are persistently avoiding the actual arguments. You haven't actually refuted any particular claim I've made; for the last few pages you've merely been testing how far I go with my logic (because you know it makes logical sense and invalidates any claim that the nomenclatorial systems are objective). Now that you see I apply my logic universally you are now resorting to the pathetic claim that my sources are biassed or I am making nonsensical arguments (despite not being able to refute them).

Subspecies (Race) A. (Caucasoid)
Subspecies (Race) B. (Mongoloid)
etc

These are not arbitrary because they are of seperate lines of descent. You have no way around this, which is why for your kooky ''racial denial'' you must adopt the a priori OOA view.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
Phylogenetics and biogeography debunks your racial denial. That is why you never adress these points.

I've addressed them on multiple occasions; you're just too incompetent to remember.

Your racial denial is based entirely on monophyletism and the OOA, or the single replacement theory. So you set up an a priori yourself (epic fail).

Most of my arguments don't involve this. OOA is the consensus because most of the evidence supports this position; account for mtDNA time depth gradually trailing from Africa if you disagree.

Species and subspecies (races) are not social constructs as they are of discrete lineages.

We're all of discrete lineages.

A 5 year old can go into their back garden and realise the reality that bees and ants are seperate.

A 5-year-old also realises his mother and father are separate.

Yet according to you, both of these are ''social constructs''.

Account for Livingstone's (2008)/Maglo's (2011) summation of the illogic of 'race' and Barbujani and Belle's (2006) conclusions.

As I said, your views are not rooted in reality, they are rooted in using the internet to post a kooky position for attention - its makes you feel special as only you hold such views.

You overestimate how much I and other people care about this discussion and general topic. Again, you are depicting signs of psychological projection: I'm actually not obsessed like you, believe it or not.

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
Subspecies (Race) A. (Caucasoid)
Subspecies (Race) B. (Mongoloid)
etc

These are not arbitrary because they are of seperate lines of descent.

Account for mtDNA evidence.

You have no way around this, which is why for your kooky ''racial denial'' you must adopt the a priori OOA view.

The majority of the evidence supports this position, which is why it is the academic consensus. Note that you are relying on the fringe multi-regionalism model, despite the bulk of the academic literature presenting evidence that OOA is the most plausible explanation for human diversity. Notwithstanding lineages, the rest of the biological evidence doesn't support discrete clusters, either.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by asfka)
Quick question from an idiot.

At what point does the 'Seperate Lines of Descent' argument cease to be?

When does the argument resolve itself?

To my very small mind, I can't make sense of it. To me, the OOA idea was as simple as all life having a source and constantly branching out, diversifying and covering geographies in the process. I have no papers to quote, just a small minded person with a question as to the absolute fundamentals of the argument.

Are you asking when a "separate line of descent" no longer becomes significant/grounds for a different category?

Considering you have both been posting on this thread from page 1, I'd say your both obsessed and it is fantastic that you are.

Nah, Pyramidologist collects books from the 19th century on this topic; I perform a perfunctory search to find modern articles that refute his nonsense. It is analogically pertinent to my dissertation topic so it's in my direct academic interests to continue.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by asfka)
To answer your question, yes.

There is no stopping point other than the individual organism (as this is obviously the terminus of the lineage and where it must resolve itself). Any decision to create a category above the level of the individual organism is arbitrary/socially constructed and is not grounded in logic.

[HermesTrismegistus]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Universal phenomena like gravity, the speed of electromagnetic radiation or cell mutation. Mathematical formulae/scientific laws derived from these concepts are also objective, as they represent these natural phenomena in a completely unambiguous and definite manner. But this is just my opinion, and there is the school of solipsism and the observer effect that will argue nothing is intrinsically definite or objective. In respect to 'race' and 'species', the lack of consensus over whether something is in one group, another group or a new one entirely speaks for itself. Assuming all the various grouping systems are predicated on what is observed, it is apparent that reducing such substantial and overlapping variation into a single category is an arbitrary process; hence, the ongoing and historical attempts to redefine various standards or create alternative ones.

Assuming your empirical claims are true, I would agree with you. At least in the case of human races they would be what is commonly understood as a social construct. And Pyramidologist is missing your point, you are not committed to saying that the difference between physical objects is as weakly grounded as that of races. Even if objects are a social construct they would have a much stronger pragmatic base

But intelligence is idiosyncratic. I cannot see the value of an average that subsumes an unrelated group into a single unit without accounting for their individualised intelligences. If the goal is determining what makes somebody intelligent, it would make more sense to compare an intelligent individual and an unintelligent individual to see the neurological differences between the two.

In spite of the discussion about the status of the concept of race, it is an open empirical question whether races are correlated with variations in mean I.Q. scores. I believe this has been found to be the case in statistical experiments. Admittedly, if race is a social construct it would make sense for this correlation to be due to social, not genetic, factors. Would you agree with this?

As to the usefulness, it isn't useful in assessing an individual, but I think it is important to take group differences into account when planning public policy.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by HermesTrismegistus)
In spite of the discussion about the status of the concept of race, it is an open empirical question whether races are correlated with variations in mean I.Q. scores. I believe this has been found to be the case in statistical experiments. Admittedly, if race is a social construct it would make sense for this correlation to be due to social, not genetic, factors. Would you agree with this?

As to the usefulness, it isn't useful in assessing an individual, but I think it is important to take group differences into account when planning public policy.

I still fundamentally disagree with the process of grouping in this case so I cannot bring myself to agree with anything derived from such groupings to be of value. I simply do not believe a person's individuality should be subsumed into an average when they have no tangible affinity to the persons within that average.

If low intelligence is a social problem it would make sense to understand the things in common between those who are of low intelligence and those who are of high intelligence to isolate the causal* processes at play. Although I believe the individual's choice to nurture their mind plays a critical role and any unambiguous/standardisable quantitative causal processes will never be found, this both individualises people and undermines the generic and highly problematic grouping/averaging process on the basis of nationality/ethnicity/etc.; such things should not serve as the independent variables when they are not the important factor to consider.

*I still think assessing something as complex, mutable and multifaceted as intelligence is a deeply flawed exercise, but for the sake of this argument I'll go along with it. Furthermore, given the extensive social implications of declaring "persons with immutable X traits are necessarily less intelligent than those with immutable Y traits", I would hope IQ scores are not seen to define a person. If social/cultural traits—which are heavily mutable—are particularly influential I would have no ethical concerns with research of this nature.

[HermesTrismegistus]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
I still fundamentally disagree with the process of grouping in this case so I cannot bring myself to agree with anything derived from such groupings to be of value. I simply do not believe a person's individuality should be subsumed into an average when they have no tangible affinity to the persons within that average.

If low intelligence is a social problem it would make sense to understand the things in common between those who are of low intelligence and those who are of high intelligence to isolate the causal* processes at play. Although I believe the individual's choice to nurture their mind plays a critical role and any unambiguous/standardisable quantitative causal processes will never be found, this both individualises people and undermines the generic and highly problematic grouping/averaging process on the basis of nationality/ethnicity/etc.; such things should not serve as the independent variables when they are not the important factor to consider.

*I still think assessing something as complex, mutable and multifaceted as intelligence is a deeply flawed exercise, but for the sake of this argument I'll go along with it. Furthermore, given the extensive social implications of declaring "persons with immutable X traits are necessarily less intelligent than those with immutable Y traits", I would hope IQ scores are not seen to define a person. If social/cultural traits—which are heavily mutable—are particularly influential I would have no ethical concerns with research of this nature.

If the empirical premises obtain, agreed. Thank you for presenting such an interesting line of argumentation so perspicuously.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[floridadad55]

People who may think they are of a "pure' race (whatever that is) may be in for a surprise.

Because of modern technology, it is often found that people have genes from many places.

For example, I read an article recently that said Thomas Jefferson's bloodline had genes which probably came from Spain, and that some of his ancestors were probably jews who fled the Spanish Inquisition.

Also, I read an article about people in the State of New Mexico in the United States, who found out that they were really jewish, and that their heirs were also jews who fled the Spanish Inquisition to come to the new world.

That would be ironic----to be anti-semitic, only to find out that you yourself were jewish.

[Mick.w]

(Original post by FreeHat)
Wikipedia which in turn quotes a physical anthropologist. You said "many Irish have brown eyes", which implies a significant proportion have brown eyes; which is false, or else the term "many" is redundant.

actually that study was conducted by an american over 2 years in the 1930's. it was not exactly thorough. it conducted essentially of a focus group of pockets of irish people around the country.

now given also that this was a form of research conducted only 30 years after it was relitively popular belief that the irish were the "missing link" in evolution between ape and man i would be skepitcal of the bias that would perhaps have gone with it.

also the study talks about pure brown eyes being rare. not general variations. i may self have brownish eyes with green and grey hints. but predominatly are brown. this is a trait that is found through my entire family. so perhaps i should have been more delicate with my use of words considering i was speaking to such a sensative customer.

to put it a better way. "dark eyes" is what is synnonymous with the black irish. dark hair, pale skin, dark eyes.

[Pyramidologist]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Are you asking when a "separate line of descent" no longer becomes significant/grounds for a different category?

Nah, Pyramidologist collects books from the 19th century on this topic; I perform a perfunctory search to find modern articles that refute his nonsense. It is analogically pertinent to my dissertation topic so it's in my direct academic interests to continue.

I collect old works, but have plenty of modern. Racial typology has not changed, modern science supports the old data we have - so the old texts themselves are still valid.

Crow, James F. "Unequal by nature: a geneticist’s perspective
on human differences." Daedalus, Winter 2002.

Dawkins, Richard. "Race and Creation." Prospect Magazine, Oct. 23, 2004.

Garfield, Kathryn. "Is There a Genetic Basis to Race After All?" Discover Magazine, May 2007.

Hsu, Steve. "Connect the Dots [The Reality of Race]." Information Processing, Aug. 24, 2010.

Hsu, Steve. "Rare variants and human genetic diversity." Information Processing, July 8, 2012.

Khan, Razib. "The Race Question." Discover Magazine, Feb. 23, 2012.

Khan, Razib. "Richard Dawkins accepts the usefulness of race." Discover Magazine, May 4, 2012.

Lahn, Bruce & Lanny Ebenstein. "Let's celebrate human genetic diversity." Nature 461, no. 35 (2009).

Leroi, Armand Marie. "A Family Tree in Every Gene." New York Times, March 14, 2005.

Mayr, Ernst, "The Biology of Race and the Concept of Equality." Daedalus, Winter 2002.

McAuliffe, Kathleen. "They Don't Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To: Our species—and individual races—have recently made big evolutionary changes to adjust to new pressures." Discover Magazine, Feb. 2, 2009.

Miller, Geoffrey. "The looming crisis in human genetics." The Economist, Nov 13, 2009.

Mountain, Joanna L. & Neil Risch. "Assessing Genomic contributions to phenotypic differences among racial and ethnic groups." Nature Genetics 36, no. 11 (2004).

Race, Ethnicity, and Genetics Working Group. "The Use of Racial, Ethnic, and Ancestral Categories in Human Genetics Research." The American Journal of Human Genetics 77 (2005).

Risch, Niel, et al. "Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease." Genome Biology, July 1, 2002.

Rosenberg, Noah A. et al. "Genetic Structure of Human Populations." Science 298, no. 5602 (2002).

Sailer, Steve. "A Race Is An Extremely Extended Family." ISteve, 1998.

Sailer, Steve. "The Reality of Race." VDare, May 25, 2000.

Sailer, Steve. "Seven Dumb Ideas about Race." VDare, May 31, 2000.

Sailer, Steve. "Where Dawkins Fears To Tread: Ethnic Nepotism And The Reality Of Race." VDare, Oct. 3, 2004.

Sailer, Steve. "Race Does Exist--New York Times." VDare, March 20, 2005.

Sailer, Steve. "The Race FAQ." VDare, Dec. 16, 2007.

Sesardic, Neven. "Race: a social destruction of a biological concept." Biology and Philosophy, 2010.

Sarich, Vincent & Frank Miele. Race: The Reality of Human Differences. Westview Press, 2005.

Sewell, Martin. "Race: An Introduction." Martin Sewell Blog, March 4, 2010.

Wade, Nicholas. "Race Is Seen as Real Guide To Track Roots of Disease." New York Times, July 30, 2002.

Wade, Nicholas. "Gene Study Identifies 5 Main Human Populations, Linking Them to Geography." New York Times, Dec. 20, 2002.

Wade, Nicholas. "Humans Have Spread Globally, and Evolved Locally." New York Times, June 26, 2007.

Woodley, Michael A. "Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications." Medical Hypotheses 74 (2010).

Xing, Jinchuan et al. "Fine-scaled human genetic structure revealed by SNP microarrays." Genome Research 19 (2009).

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
I collect old works, but have plenty of modern. Racial typology has not changed, modern science supports the old data we have - so the old texts themselves are still valid.

Crow, James F. "Unequal by nature: a geneticist’s perspective
on human differences." Daedalus, Winter 2002.

Dawkins, Richard. "Race and Creation." Prospect Magazine, Oct. 23, 2004.

Garfield, Kathryn. "Is There a Genetic Basis to Race After All?" Discover Magazine, May 2007.

Hsu, Steve. "Connect the Dots [The Reality of Race]." Information Processing, Aug. 24, 2010.

Hsu, Steve. "Rare variants and human genetic diversity." Information Processing, July 8, 2012.

Khan, Razib. "The Race Question." Discover Magazine, Feb. 23, 2012.

Khan, Razib. "Richard Dawkins accepts the usefulness of race." Discover Magazine, May 4, 2012.

Lahn, Bruce & Lanny Ebenstein. "Let's celebrate human genetic diversity." Nature 461, no. 35 (2009).

Leroi, Armand Marie. "A Family Tree in Every Gene." New York Times, March 14, 2005.

Mayr, Ernst, "The Biology of Race and the Concept of Equality." Daedalus, Winter 2002.

McAuliffe, Kathleen. "They Don't Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To: Our species—and individual races—have recently made big evolutionary changes to adjust to new pressures." Discover Magazine, Feb. 2, 2009.

Miller, Geoffrey. "The looming crisis in human genetics." The Economist, Nov 13, 2009.

Mountain, Joanna L. & Neil Risch. "Assessing Genomic contributions to phenotypic differences among racial and ethnic groups." Nature Genetics 36, no. 11 (2004).

Race, Ethnicity, and Genetics Working Group. "The Use of Racial, Ethnic, and Ancestral Categories in Human Genetics Research." The American Journal of Human Genetics 77 (2005).

Risch, Niel, et al. "Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease." Genome Biology, July 1, 2002.

Rosenberg, Noah A. et al. "Genetic Structure of Human Populations." Science 298, no. 5602 (2002).

Sailer, Steve. "A Race Is An Extremely Extended Family." ISteve, 1998.

Sailer, Steve. "The Reality of Race." VDare, May 25, 2000.

Sailer, Steve. "Seven Dumb Ideas about Race." VDare, May 31, 2000.

Sailer, Steve. "Where Dawkins Fears To Tread: Ethnic Nepotism And The Reality Of Race." VDare, Oct. 3, 2004.

Sailer, Steve. "Race Does Exist--New York Times." VDare, March 20, 2005.

Sailer, Steve. "The Race FAQ." VDare, Dec. 16, 2007.

Sesardic, Neven. "Race: a social destruction of a biological concept." Biology and Philosophy, 2010.

Sarich, Vincent & Frank Miele. Race: The Reality of Human Differences. Westview Press, 2005.

Sewell, Martin. "Race: An Introduction." Martin Sewell Blog, March 4, 2010.

Wade, Nicholas. "Race Is Seen as Real Guide To Track Roots of Disease." New York Times, July 30, 2002.

Wade, Nicholas. "Gene Study Identifies 5 Main Human Populations, Linking Them to Geography." New York Times, Dec. 20, 2002.

Wade, Nicholas. "Humans Have Spread Globally, and Evolved Locally." New York Times, June 26, 2007.

Woodley, Michael A. "Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications." Medical Hypotheses 74 (2010).

Xing, Jinchuan et al. "Fine-scaled human genetic structure revealed by SNP microarrays." Genome Research 19 (2009).

It's quite funny that you are linking to news websites, books and blogs to bulk out the amount of recent references you have. Peer-reviewed references that I haven't already refuted will be useful, especially since we're discussing science. Seriously, some of those articles (Risch, Rosenberg et al., in particular) have been ripped to shreds many times over and I have addressed them in my discussions to you on many occasions.

[rattusratus]

why do people get so confused?

race is where your from? - nothing else

example:

you can be black and British but your ancestors wont be British probably African - you will always be negroid as where your ancestors but your race would be British