[Pants-of-dog]

Uh no...both things are absolutely true. I am not moving any goalposts. You insisted that humans and chimps cannot have offspring. I said there was no scientific consensus on that. I showed a source repeating that claim.

You did not read my post carefully enough.

I said chimpanzees and humans cannot produce viable offspring through sexual reproduction.

“Viable” here means that any human-chimpanzee hybrid would not be able to have kids.

Your source agrees with me. Any “offspring would be infertile” as the article puts it.

I also said it is possible that humans are a ring species. You rejected that for no reason but whatever.. the fact you even know that a ring species is possible proves that your definition of species is simplistic and incomplete. Indeed there are many animals who are technically different species but absolutrly can have viable offspring.

No one said viable offspring was the only criterion for a species. We were discussing the fact that you think the difference between chimpanzees and humans is arbitrary when there is a clear and objective line between them that is also used as a criterion for species, since it is objective and not arbitrary.

Whether or not a human chimpanzee hybrid is possible is irrelevant to the question of whether or not humans and chimpanzees are different species.

[Tainari88]

You did not read my post carefully enough.

I said chimpanzees and humans cannot produce viable offspring through sexual reproduction.

“Viable” here means that any human-chimpanzee hybrid would not be able to have kids.

Your source agrees with me. Any “offspring would be infertile” as the article puts it.



No one said viable offspring was the only criterion for a species. We were discussing the fact that you think the difference between chimpanzees and humans is arbitrary when there is a clear and objective line between them that is also used as a criterion for species, since it is objective and not arbitrary.

Whether or not a human chimpanzee hybrid is possible is irrelevant to the question of whether or not humans and chimpanzees are different species.

Pants this might interest you.

Some geneticists did an experiment. They are pinning down the subtle differences that make human brains and chimp brains different.

Here:

https://elifesciences.org/articles/1868 ... YREALw_wcB

An excerpt:

Abstract
Human neocortex expansion likely contributed to the remarkable cognitive abilities of humans. This expansion is thought to primarily reflect differences in proliferation versus differentiation of neural progenitors during cortical development. Here, we have searched for such differences by analysing cerebral organoids from human and chimpanzees using immunohistofluorescence, live imaging, and single-cell transcriptomics. We find that the cytoarchitecture, cell type composition, and neurogenic gene expression programs of humans and chimpanzees are remarkably similar. Notably, however, live imaging of apical progenitor mitosis uncovered a lengthening of prometaphase-metaphase in humans compared to chimpanzees that is specific to proliferating progenitors and not observed in non-neural cells. Consistent with this, the small set of genes more highly expressed in human apical progenitors points to increased proliferative capacity, and the proportion of neurogenic basal progenitors is lower in humans. These subtle differences in cortical progenitors between humans and chimpanzees may have consequences for human neocortex evolution.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18683.001
eLife digest
The human brain is about three times as big as the brain of our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. Moreover, a part of the brain called the cerebral cortex – which plays a key role in memory, attention, awareness and thought – contains twice as many cells in humans as the same region in chimpanzees. Networks of brain cells in the cerebral cortex also behave differently in the two species.

How these species differences arise is not clear, but it likely occurs in the earliest phases of development when brain stem and progenitor cells divide and give rise to cerebral cortex cells in the growing brain. To study the earliest stages of brain development, researchers often use human brain cells grown in the laboratory. Under the right conditions, cells collected from adult humans and other animals can be reprogrammed to behave like brain stem cells. Recently, researchers have been able to use these reprogrammed cells to make tissue that resembles the brain in petri dishes, known as brain organoids.

Mora-Bermúdez, Badsha, Kanton, Camp et al. have now analysed brain organoids grown from reprogrammed human, chimpanzee and orangutan cells. The experiments showed that the human and chimpanzee brain organoids were remarkably similar in many ways including in the mix of cell types and in how these cells were arranged.

[FiveofSwords]

You did not read my post carefully enough.

I said chimpanzees and humans cannot produce viable offspring through sexual reproduction.

“Viable” here means that any human-chimpanzee hybrid would not be able to have kids.

Your source agrees with me. Any “offspring would be infertile” as the article puts it.



No one said viable offspring was the only criterion for a species. We were discussing the fact that you think the difference between chimpanzees and humans is arbitrary when there is a clear and objective line between them that is also used as a criterion for species, since it is objective and not arbitrary.

Whether or not a human chimpanzee hybrid is possible is irrelevant to the question of whether or not humans and chimpanzees are different species.

Everyone knows 'viable offspring' means they are not sterile. You learn this crap in middle school...like mules is the classic example.

However, it must be possible for life forms to reproduce despite having different chromosomes, even if difficult, or else no evolution could have produced different chromosomes. Simple logic there. So the claim in that article is just false by simple logic.

There is a clear and objective difference between humans and chimps. Of course. And there is clear and objective differences between white and black people, lol. Yet there is still an arbitrary nature to the taxonomic division between humans and chimps. That illustrates how absurd it is for you to complain about how there exists something arbitrary relating to the categorization of races.

[Potemkin]

Everyone knows 'viable offspring' means they are not sterile. You learn this crap in middle school...like mules is the classic example.

However, it must be possible for life forms to reproduce despite having different chromosomes, even if difficult, or else no evolution could have produced different chromosomes. Simple logic there. So the claim in that article is just false by simple logic.

There is a clear and objective difference between humans and chimps. Of course. And there is clear and objective differences between white and black people, lol. Yet there is still an arbitrary nature to the taxonomic division between humans and chimps. That illustrates how absurd it is for you to complain about how there exists something arbitrary relating to the categorization of races.

So essentially you’re saying that categorising humans into ‘races’ is fundamentally arbitrary, but is a useful thing to do? Useful to whom? And for what purpose?

Again, we keep returning to the point that race is a social construct - it is used for social and political purposes, by both the Right and the Left. It has no scientific basis, and no scientific utility.

[Pants-of-dog]

And there is clear and objective differences between white and black people, lol.

What is it?

Please be clear and specific.

[FiveofSwords]

What is it?

Please be clear and specific.

Well one for example is that black people have darker skin. This is a genetic difference. According to your favorite scientist 'Zach' this cannot be the case...black people cannot have darker skin than white people or if they do it is only caused by the environment somehow.

[Potemkin]

Well one for example is that black people have darker skin. This is a genetic difference. According to your favorite scientist 'Zach' this cannot be the case...black people cannot have darker skin than white people or if they do it is only caused by the environment somehow.

There are genetic differences between people. But the genetic differences between ‘races’ are less than the genetic differences between individuals within those ‘races’. As I said, skin pigmentation seems like a large genetic difference, but it actually isn’t.

[FiveofSwords]

There are genetic differences between people. But the genetic differences between ‘races’ are less than the genetic differences between individuals within those ‘races’. As I said, skin pigmentation seems like a large genetic difference, but it actually isn’t.

I don't care how minor you think the genetic difference between skin color is. The question is whether the difference is zero or not. If there are zero genetic differences between the races then it follows that genetically a Swedish person in 1650 is exactly as likely as a Bantu to have dark skin.

[Potemkin]

I don't care how minor you think the genetic difference between skin color is. The question is whether the difference is zero or not. If there are zero genetic differences between the races then it follows that genetically a Swedish person in 1650 is exactly as likely as a Bantu to have dark skin.

I am not claiming that there are zero genetic differences between, say, a Bantu and a Swede. I am claiming that the genetic differences between, say, two Bantu people can be greater than the genetic differences between a Bantu and a Swede. The concept of ‘race’ has no scientific utility. However, it clearly has social and political utility, both for the Right and the Left.

[FiveofSwords]

I am not claiming that there are zero genetic differences between, say, a Bantu and a Swede. I am claiming that the genetic differences between, say, two Bantu people can be greater than the genetic differences between a Bantu and a Swede. The concept of ‘race’ has no scientific utility. However, it clearly has social and political utility, both for the Right and the Left.

But you absolutely WERE claiming there are zero genetic differences between a bantu and a Swede. If it has no scientific utility then we are going to have to assume that sub saharan africans are in no way at greater risk of having a vitamin d defenciency (because of skin color) in sweden...and swedes are in no way at greater risk of getting skin cancer. This is of course demonstrably false and they are anti scientific assumptions.

Whether or not bantus have greater 'genetic difference' between eachother than the difference between swedes and bantus...however your quantify that or what differences you choose to care about...it does not mean that bantus are not more likely to have more melanin in their skin than a swede...and that is in fact a difference. It is a non zero difference.

And if you are capable of admitting that bantus do tend to have more melanin than swedes, then you have to give up on this nonsense about race having no biological foundation. Skin color is more than zero.

[Tainari88]

I am not claiming that there are zero genetic differences between, say, a Bantu and a Swede. I am claiming that the genetic differences between, say, two Bantu people can be greater than the genetic differences between a Bantu and a Swede. The concept of ‘race’ has no scientific utility. However, it clearly has social and political utility, both for the Right and the Left.

It is over 4am in Scotland. Sword man does not get that you are fast asleep. Tomorrow is another work day for Potemkin. Lol.

Melanin is significant. Lol. It is caused by the environment. Over time. But also a light skinned person can get a deep tan in a week or two of being in the sun. It is adjusting its color to protect itself. It does not occur to him that if it can do that in a light skinned person who tans to a deep tan to protect itself in a couple of weeks? In one lifetime? How quickly can the mutation happen for a people living in sunny climates for a short time in terms of mutations? And it can also be going in the opposite direction. Blue eyes is a relatively new phenomenon. Only about 5% of humans have it now. Lol.

That means in the fairly recent past generations that mutation did not really manifest.

All of the blue eyed people came from darker eyed ancestors. All this extremely important physical differences are kind of malleable. The important thing is are we genetically able to reproduce and create fertile offspring? Yes. Then we are one species. ONE. Not a dead end genetically.

Again, back to square one with Swordy. All these traits are set in stone or do they change and transform over time? Yes.

Zach explained it quite well actually.

And he is a scientist. That swordy wants to say he is not explaining it and is a liar....shows that Swordy wants something to be true even if it is not scientific.

All he needs to do is admit he is a man who believes in myth, and in unscientific conclusions and that he wants his group to be powerful and to believe in a natural superiority. That he can't prove. But is socially constructed. The issue then becomes why he has to lie to do this?

Why is being white and white genocide such a very important thing now? According the White Supremacist websites 9% is the amount of white people on Earth. 91% of the planet is not white people. And the nonwhite people are the majority. White people unless they reproduce with other white people are going to go extinct. A tragedy. And the threat is real. So they have to promote purity. But purity is not really going to happen.

They need to trust in their fellow human beings. No matter what ethnic or racial somatic looks they may carry. They rely on the nonwhite world right now. For labor, for trade, for money, for travel, for scientific discoveries, for art, for music, for creativity, for innovation, for every single thing that is about human survival.

Trust the entire human race. Not just the white race. But they can't get beyond that. They have to live with the idea that their 'kind' are under threat.

Right now at 8 billion humans we are not going extinct. We are a very abundant species. But, each of us are unique individuals and precious. To the whole of humankind. It took a lot for you to get here. To be born, be educated, be alive and be talking and writing and so on....work. Hard work. And respect life. Do not wish for death.

And if you can not accept people who are 91% of humanity? How are you going to dominate them and or kill them off? With weapons of mass destruction? How is that gonna work without wiping out the 9% in the process eh?

The Nazi Twilight Zone is a lonely place to live.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well one for example is that black people have darker skin. This is a genetic difference.

So do many other races and people.

This genetic coding appears in more than one race so this genetic coding is not distinct to Black people.

This seems arbitrary and variable.

[FiveofSwords]

So do many other races and people.

This genetic coding appears in more than one race so this genetic coding is not distinct to Black people.

This seems arbitrary and variable.

Of course. Dark skin is just one difference between white and black people. There are others also...some of which I mentioned at the very start of this thread.

But I can tell you are not a professional shill if you are not willing to die on this hill. You actually HAVE to insist that black people do NOT tend to have darker skin than white people on average... You have to insist they do NOT have flatter noses on average. You HAVE to insist that they do not have bigger lips on average.

Because the moment you admit that these 'trivial' racial differences do exist, you have to just throw in the trash the absurd idea that there is ZERO biological or genetic component to race. And it is vital for your propaganda that there actually is ZERO. It is not enough to argue that the differences are 'trivial or 'everything except the brain'.

The moment you find yourself arguing the differences exist but are trivial, you have lost the propaganda war. Because no intelligent person is going to believe it.

The propaganda has then shifted from the 'big lie' that there is zero genetic component to race and to the 'small lie' that the genetic aspects are trivial. And as Hitler and goebbles pointed out, the masses are more easily deceived by a big lie...they tend to overcome small lies.

The elite of the usa constantly cry about how black people fail in school, are arrested more often, are more poor on average, etc. And the ONLY allowable explanation for that is that our institutions are all racist against black people.

But the normies can see quite clearly that actually our institutions are NOT racist against black people. Our institutions pander to black people...Indeed worship black people.

So if the normie is given permission to even IMAGINE there might be some other explanation for black failure other than racist institutions, the answers will immediately present themselves. Normies might be willing to wonder, for example, if there is a higher rate of an MAOA mutation among black people which is strongly associated with psychopathic behavior.

The instant people can even consider entertaining such possibilities, your entire house of cards collapses. You cannot allow it. You must die on the hill of ZERO genetic difference.

The fact you do not seem to know that suggests to me that you are more likely a useful idiot than a genuine shill. If you were Stephen j gould, for example, you would understand very well this fundamental aspect of the propaganda and you would never grant that black people have darker skin on average. That is a fatal concession.

[ingliz]

You must die on the hill of ZERO genetic difference.

Why?

We have no interest in lying or propaganda, unlike you.

[FiveofSwords]

Why?

We have no interest in lying or propaganda, unlike you.

Well it does appear to me that you guys are just fools who actually believe the propaganda lol. But for sure the people you trust are very self aware of the fact they are lying. Franz boas and Stephen j gould were fully aware that they were just lying. And they weren't even lying to serve some higher purpose, they were lying to benefit their own race.

[Pants-of-dog]

Of course. Dark skin is just one difference between white and black people. There are others also...some of which I mentioned at the very start of this thread.

Are they all as arbitrary, variable, and not specific to any race?

[ingliz]

@FiveofSwords

"Franz [B]oas"

Are you pissed that Boas found no genetic difference between Jews and non-Jews?

And him having cranial plasticity confirmed must have been an embarrassment for you scientifically racist phrenologists, too.

[FiveofSwords]

@FiveofSwords

"Franz [B]oas"

Are you pissed that Boas found no genetic difference between Jews and non-Jews?

And him having cranial plasticity confirmed must have been an embarrassment for you scientifically racist phrenologists, too.

Well thats the thing.. he was wrong. In fact it is the scientific consensus that he was wrong. A scientist can actually identify the race of a person by measuring their skull, lol. And this is done regularly in forensics. Scientists absolutrly can ide tiny whether bodies in some mass grave in Germany are jewish or not. All legitimate scientists will inform you of these things.

Franz boas was not only wrong, he was actually lying. He knew he was wrong. Back in like 2000 scientists redid his skull experiments using the exact same skulls he used and confirmed that he was simply fabricating data.

More genuine anthropologists like Charles davenport who were dutifully seeking out what was true or false and using the scientific method were actually bullied out of academia by Franz and his goons resorting to threats and intimidation. Franz was like a mafia infiltrating western academia lol. And yes that is the standard scientific consensus today

[ingliz]

Well that[']s the thing.. he was wrong

A paper, by anthropologists at the University of Michigan, the University of Florida, and Northwestern University, published in American Anthropologist concludes that Boas correctly interpreted his head-form data.

As Boas hypothesized, our results show that children born in the U.S. environment are markedly less similar to their parents in terms of head form than foreign-born children are to theirs (r = .412 and r = .648, respectively). Moreover, inferential statistics practically eliminate the possibility that this observation is a result of random sampling error (p < .001 for all regressions). This finding thus corroborates Boas's overarching conclusion that the cephalic index is sensitive to environmental influences and, therefore, does not serve as a valid marker of racial phylogeny.

— C. C. Gravlee, H. Russell Bernard & W. R. Leonard (2003) Heredity, Environment, and Cranial Form: A Reanalysis of Boas's Immigrant Data

Scientists absolut[e]ly can

No, they cannot.

By thoroughly measuring a skull, some morphometricians believe they can correctly identify its owner's continent of ancestral origin with up to 90 per cent accuracy.

A 10 per cent error rate is not "tiny".

[Tainari88]

@FiveofSwords wrote:

More genuine anthropologists like Charles davenport who were dutifully seeking out what was true or false and using the scientific method were actually bullied out of academia by Franz and his goons resorting to threats and intimidation. Franz was like a mafia infiltrating western academia lol. And yes that is the standard scientific consensus today

Charles Davenport was a eugenicist that believed in forced sterlization and not mixing the races. He was a full blown racist and also a supporter of Hitler. All of your 'anthropologists' or 'biologists' are from a bygone racist era and have poor science that has been debunked. You have to go back a long way in time in order for you to find the right anthropologist for your crap outdated scientific racism theories.

Get that through your head. They have been debunked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Davenport

End of career and impact
After Adolf Hitler's rise to power in Germany, Davenport maintained connections with various Nazi institutions and publications, both before and during World War II. He held editorial positions at two influential German journals, both of which were founded in 1935, and in 1939 he wrote a contribution to the Festschrift for Otto Reche, who became an important figure in the plan to "remove" those populations considered "inferior" in eastern Germany.[21] In a 1938 Letter to the Editor of Life magazine, he included both Franklin Roosevelt and Joseph Goebbels as examples of crippled statesmen who, motivated by their physical defects, have "led revolutions and aspired to dictatorships while burdening their country with heavy taxes and reducing its finances to chaos."[22]

Although many other scientists had stopped supporting eugenics due to the rise of Nazism in Germany, Charles Davenport remained a fervent supporter until the end of his life. Six years after he retired in 1934, Davenport held firm to these beliefs even after the Carnegie Institute pulled funding from the eugenics program at Cold Spring Harbor in 1940.[4] While Charles Davenport is remembered primarily for his role in the eugenics movement, he also had a significant influence in increasing funding for genetics research. His success in organizing the financial support for scientific endeavors fueled his success throughout his career, while also providing for other scientists' studies.[20] Indeed, Cold Spring Harbor saw many prominent geneticists go through its doors while he was its director. He died of pneumonia in 1944 at the age of 77. He is buried in Laurel Hollow, New York.

Let me get some kleenex as you cry for your racist biologist who got his ass kicked by F. Boas. Boo hoo hoo.



He has been thoroughly rejected as having any valid basis for his racist eugenicist belief systems. He was into sterilizing Black people and also people like the Italians, the Maltese and others. He was a racist and a man that in his day they believed had a lot of validity.

If all your scientists are living in the 1800s then you got problems Sword. We have more tools to help along the process of realizing what is true and what is not.

Deal with Zach. You will not. He lies. Get someone who agrees with you that is the same age as Zach and has a career in the same field. That supports that old debunked Davenport point of view. You can't because it is not scientific anymore.

You love it because it is about denying people who are not some purity notion of racist crap entry to the USA and it is about racist beliefs and not science. You are going to have to accept you will not find a decent biologist or geneticist or even neuroscientist that is modern in this era that agrees with the Davenport doctrine. NONE. Zero. Accept it.

He wanted to kill people for having some kind of defect. Imperfections. You are a bunch of freaks with that shit. Wanting Roosevelt to not rule because he was in a wheelchair. A bunch of nightmare soulless crap people with zero morals.

https://library.missouri.edu/specialcol ... a/heredity

And also he was debunked and his ass was burned to a crisp by his own peers. Europeans. Read this and weep you foolish kleenex person.

Charles Davenport's Race Crossing in Jamaica
eugenics_011.jpg
davenport_jamaica_palms.jpg
Charles Davenport became director of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in 1910 and founded the Eugenics Record Office soon afterwards. He studied heredity and genetics early in his academic career, eventually devoting most of his time and effort to promoting, politicizing, and popularizing eugenics.

With the assistance of Mesoamerican anthropologist Morris Steggerda, Davenport attempted to quantify the consequences of "race crossing or miscegenation." In Race Crossing in Jamaica, the authors used a timed, block-arrangement exercise called the Knox Moron Test to test their subjects. The conclusions were not surprising: “The general impression made in this comparison of the three groups is that the Whites are relatively swift and accurate, the Blacks are slow but accurate, while the Browns are slow and inaccurate.” Other data presented in Race Crossing included palmar dermatoglyphics attempting to identify racial differences in the epidermis of the palm.

At the time of publication the work was roundly criticized for drawing conclusions which outstripped the data to the point of being counterfactual. Davenport’s racist interpretations of heredity were rejected by British and European eugenicists as unscientific and biased, helping brand American eugenics as racist and classist.

But it was the biased ones who discarded his eugenics and studies of counterfactual shit...No, Five man, it was his own race, the Europeans including the British. They called him unscientific and biased. DISCARDED by a group of peers in his own era.

Yet you pull him out as the shining example on the hill of TRASH science.

What are you going to say now? You can't understand the importance. You mixed breed people. You inferiors. It was not the inferiors that discarded that Davenport man. It was British and European eugenicists of his own class and skin color.

What...again...with the whining....you do not understand my greatness? You need to stop with the sob story and just admit it is all about lying on your part and propaganda. Not even Goebbels passed the test for being real neat packages.

How bad are you at accepting reality Five man?



Little lies. You love them. But you love the bigger lies more. Lol.

No one is going for the lies.