Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
* so you say that groups like Somali have no distinct combination of characteristics other than groups surrounding them ?
yes! we're saying Somali's have no distinct combination of characteristics that group them
exclusive of all other humans.
Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
So then should I simply see my ability to distinguish not scientifical bu divine ?
no, your ability to distinguish is not scientific
period, or not scientific but subjective.
Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
Id like to see that evidence . Evidence of genetic variation based on racially relevant genes (and combinations of them).
i sent you some ref's that should be a start.
Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
Objectivity doesnt exist , it is always bias and subjectivity , however the deal is to find a conclusion that we can all agree with.
no, that's not the goal. perhaps objectivity
doesn't exist, but the goal is to describe the natural world as objectively as we can, i.e. we don't introduce subjectivity when we
know it's subjective.
Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
So you're saying its a coincidence ? I resemble peoples of my family/tribe/nation just because I was lucky ?
no, we're only saying what we're saying. 'distribution of human racial traits are independent of genealogy, i.e. they're all mixed up.
Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
Anyhow , who is saying that race isnt mixed up , and ofcourse its genealogical isnt that what we are talking about in here ? Race is geneology simply much more watered than tribe or family .
no! we're saying, in humans, there is no race in a biological sense (i won't speak to sociological or cultural definitions). if there were it would be genetically measurable. this is where race is refuted in humans.
Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
Well they do , distinctive groups with todays Iritreans for instance correspond racially with ancient Egyptians , so there you go historical correspondence with aa population.
i don't know these data but if you pass a ref. along, i'd be happy to look at it and eat crow if it shows i'm wrong.
Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
Why do I dont find ancien-Egyptian similars in Wyoming then ? Why do I find them nearby and can explain their moving about logically within that region ?
genetic markers ID'ing individuals from regions is different than 'race' designations, as I've mentioned before. These are pop.gen. distinctions that i wouldn't expect a lay person to understand, but I
have been trying.
Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
Peoples grow as groups , they mix as groups they develop as groups and they show this through their physical makeover , which can be traced down genetically as its a gentical passing from one generation to another , how hard is this to understand ?
it's the mixing that disallows 'race' distinction(in a biological sense).
Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
I have changed my opinion on these boards quite some times , I have acknowledged I was wrong when it was correct to do so , but you do not offer me any refutation other than thye more genetic variation within races-story which I have refuted 100 times already .
you haven't refuted it, even once. you think you have because you don't understand pop.gen. fundamentals (which I'm not blaming you for). it's just that when we are trying to tell you how it works, you keep arguing with us and saying that it's not true. but, believe me, it is. if i knew where you were going wrong (misunderstanding) i could help you but whatever i say you argue, so i can't get a handle on it.
Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
So please , provide other arguments or at least material that you believe explains things if Im simply misunderstanding . But it doesnt seem I misunderstand , it seems that you simply do not have a point . I have done some research and this argument pops up everywhere , its not a valid argument .
perhaps this demonstration might work. do you know what a phylogenetic tree is? picture one; there are branching patterns based on familial relatedness. these branch up and out with time (measured in generations) until the present. the tips of the branches represent current individuals (i.e. there will be about 10 billion branch tips). there is no 'racial' characteristic or set of characteristics that can group those individuals on a single branch except way back in the tree, which will include about everyody.
Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
Everything is subjective it simply needs agreement upon , however what you ask is to simply ignore this physical resemblence and act like it doesnt exist because they're kidny genes might differ , THATS what doesnt make any sense at all .
as i said, the question is valid, been tested, and refuted.
Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
Who the hell is discussing sociology ?
you are, becasue anthropology is a sociological science.
Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
Have you even read what Ive been saying there ? JEWS are not a race so you cannot test racial traits on them better try religious traits rather .
irrelevant. i said nothing about jews.
Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
Slavic and Turkic groups (eventually Caucasoid) DO have racial relevance therefor you can test such things with them and when you do you will find that with them that typical nose is found a million times more often than on for instance and Iritrean or Aztek , therefor there is a relevance between those groups of peoples and that specific trait , a trait that obviously has genetic relevance .
these are not 'racial' groups. you refuse to understand what a biological race is.
Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
Dont you understand that all genes only establish human specy ? Still then we are stuck with a physical rersemblence you cannot explain because you consider not-visible resemblence just as relevant . Im not an expert on genetics so I would not know the following , but during the selection a child has from his parents , how different are the procedures between the various genes ?
i understand, you don't understand. using these same principles, one can identify subspecies (races) in other organisms, in fact, this is precisely how one identifies subspecies. when there is genetic mixing (migration between populations) differentiation cannot happen (as in humans). however this does not eliminate variation in the species. variation exists but there are no subspecies. this applies to humans as well as other organisms.
do you think that because there is variation in a species means that therefore there are races? this is simply not the case and is basic biology.
Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
In any ways , you say all are relevant I say they are not . The question still remains , why the hell do they then resemble in this way to us , as a peoples , with traits ? Or are you still stuck not acknowledging their resemblence?
you simply cannot pick genes in genetic experiments and analyses of this type because of subjective biases, it's not acceptable scientifically or logically, it's not valid, it would be rejected by every scientific journal for every science in every country, its meaningless (how many other ways can i say it?).
Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
If not , you must admit that your popular theory doesnt provide an anser to this , and that at least the direction mine is going does .
it does! you won't listen and you refuse to understand.
Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
You can say its not logical or too subjective , yours is a dead end . Mine at least goes with an obviousness we cant miss , IMO all that is necesarry is agreement on what matters and what not .
there's no dead end. genetics and population genetics are fruitful and productive sciences. whole journals are dedicated to genetics, population genetics and evolution and their results. you need also a basic education in philosophy and logic. 'agreement' has no relevance to reality and is completely independent of reality.
i'm done with you.