rationalia.com

It doesn,t end. Not for humans, dogs, barnacles. Full stop.

Rainbow said "No. My children and my neighbour's children are genetically different, and look different. If is not sufficient to classify them as different subspecies." Which begs the question as to why you categorize them as children? Surely your children (unless they're teenagers) are 99%+ the sam...

Devo reminds me of those that ridiculed Darwin. The same style, with a feeling that he is hoping his like minded friends are watching and laughing along with him. He should be happy because, no doubt, they are.

So Rainbow and NB are you saying that there are no varieties of humans in the sense that Darwin used that term?

RiverF said " The genetic susceptibility to certain disease you mention can also be applied to having brown hair or pale skin or heterochromia iridis, and all sorts of other variations." Well if you believe in deconstructing race, you may as well deconstruct hair colour etc as well. Gee Nineberry, y...

Some one said " That's what applies to humans. There is constant gene flow. There are no seperate groups. They "fade into each other". If it was that simple, then it should apply to dog breeds as well. But I can tell a dachsund from a boston terrier as easily as I can tell an east asian from an afri...

Well NineBerry, where do you differ from Darwin? He assumed that race/varieties existed in everything - an ongoing process - and didn't make an exception for humans despite the controversy it caused (evolution itself was bad enough). So why do you think he was wrong to not make an exception and do y...

Rainbow, I asked you to provide EVIDENCE not proof. You can duck behind the impossibility of providing a PROOF for the non existence of unicorns but that is not what I am asking for. Merely evidence from your side of the debate. Darwin assumed that race (aka varieties) existed in humans and pigeons ...

rainbow wrote:The frequency map of Rh- shows clearly that the distribution doesn't follow the mythical divisions of 'race' classification.

Well you could always offer evidence that race doesn,t exist and not that 99% stuff. It is not as if I am asking for proof so you could hide behind Papa Popper. Just evidence.

rainbow wrote:

pinkharrier wrote:I thought my 99% the same comment was obviously sarcastic.

The only obvious thing about it was its utter stupidity.

Naturally. Sarcastically matching the stupidity of those who use that dumb or disingenuous reasoning.

I thought my 99% the same comment was obviously sarcastic. Not to all, however. My point is that these 99% the same comparisons to prove the non existence of race, height, gender, age are so much BS. We are probably 98%+ the same as chimps but no one, yet, implies that this proves the non existence ...

So there's no such thing as race or gender because we are all (every human) 99% the same. So racial AND gender profiling should be given the heave ho. And police descriptions using those old fashioned, unscientific terms should go as well. Are we all happy now?

Good traits? Well evolution usually rewards strength and intelligence and things like reaction time. So weakness, idiocy and slow reaction time may not be "bad" as such but they don't have the odds in their corner either. Perhaps you feel different when these qualities are judged in a human context....

I guess I would go for racial or other profiling if it saved lives. If it did, why not?

Wow. You guys are quick.