Racist?

All this study shows is that at one time in early homo sapien sapien evolution the Neanderthals interbred more with Eurasians than they did with the humans living in Sub-Sahara Africa. This has nothing to do with being 'white' or 'non-white'.If we investigate this article fully and take your inane reasoning given above to its logical end, than Japanese, Chinese and Papuan New Guineans (and therefore their polynesian, australian aborigine and native american descendents) are 'white' too, as shown below: and In fact by the above 'all Eurasians are related to Neanderthals' criteria, the entire world except for subsaharan African's would be considered 'white'. Furthermore, since many African-Americans are descendents of sub-Saharan African slaves many of which interbred with Europeans, American colonialists and southern Plantationists, they are really 'white' as well. And even further, many sub-Saharan Africans interbred with Europens, Arabs, Phonecians, Chinese, and people of India than they truly are white as well. In the end everyone is shades of white.In conclusion, how does evidence that Neanderthals at one time interbred with Eurasians differentiate 'whites' from 'blacks' (i.e. are Neanderthals considered 'white'? If so why?) and how the heck does this play into your idea that modern 'blacks can't get thier shit together', tens of thousands of years after Neandethals died out?Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Translation: if we strawman this into something completely diffterent than what Artemis Entreri said, then we can form some Bull Shit argument against what he posted.when are you going to quit putting words into my mouth? really!?! LOL. what a fucking tard. all you asked is for one example of how whites and black are different outside of "My" arbitrary opinion. I gave you one, with Scientific evidence to back it up, and now you move the goalposts to something else we previously talked about, you are too much, I can no langer take you seriously.remember sayign this in message 276??

quote:

---

Is an Iranian or an Egyptian closer genetically to a 'white' Norwegian or a 'black' Ethiopian?

---

yeah cause that is exactly what I said. 500 shades of white.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------what is with people around here? twisting words, moving the goal posts, asking you to answer a question and then when you do (with evidence) they ignore it and move to some other point or strawman what you are saying?weak

Except for one thing, I have never seen any man who was white. Pinkish Tan yes, olive brown yes, reddish tan yes, but not white. The same for black. I have never seen a black man. Deep brown yes, deep olive brown yes, deep reddish brown yes but not black.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Skin color is a pretty poor criterion to base anything on as it correlates primarily with distance from the equator.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You know that and I know that, but try to get others to agree is, and has been, a problem for centuries.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Forgive me. Sometimes I'm too colourful for literal minded people.What you said was, "I bet there is well over 500 white ancestries, but a white person is still a white person nomatter if they are from Iceland, or Iran."What I'm saying is that there's too much overlap at the end of your scale - too many "dark white" people overlapping with "light brown" people - for the term "white" to have any meaning.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

There are two problems that I can see. The first being that the population of africans with modern human morphology first evolved in africa about 100-200k years ago and subsequently spread throughout africa. The population that left africa roughly 50k years ago and that may have interbred with neanderthals were for all intents and purposes sub-saharan african. The most likely area that they would have first come into contact with their neighbor neanderthals would have been in the middle east, which leads to the second problem. It was after this interbreeding was well underway that modern humans then diverged again. So by your criterion, there are only two so-called races, those that carry 1-4% of neanderthal genes and those that do not.The fact remains, that you have yet to produce any evidence that there are sufficient differences among modern human populations to be able to identify traits, or abilities based on any racial classification.Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.Edited by DBlevins, : fixed html grammer error

But the "those that carry" could then have further evolved and now be classified into more races so you could actually have more than two. Regardless of whether we can legitamately assign traits to races or not, the races are still there.It can be as plain as day. Sure, the edges get real fuzzy and there's some overlap, but that doesn't mean everythings the same.Take hair color. The ranges of blonde, brown, red, black and grey are gonna have fuzzy edges and overlap some too. It might be impossible to tell if one particular persons hair is dark blonde or light brown. But that doesn't mean that we can't classify hair color at all.And further, with genetic evidence, we should be able to determine if the person has the allele(s) for blonde hair, and it just turns out to be fairly dark, or if they have the brown one(s), and they happen to be light. So even if we can't determine it just by looking at the color with our eyes, that doesn't mean that there isn't a distinction there.And too we have stereotypes, say, dumb blondes. That isn't saying all blondes are dumb, nor that being blonde causes you to be dumb. But people are noticing a trend... there's gotta be something factual behind it.Young black men have a higher rate of aids than any other group (iirc). If some girl takes that fact and decides to avoid sex with young black men, is she being racist? Or is she taking care based on factual information?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Which ones?
Some people can clearly see that I am not racist, others may think differently.If you were the one with the problem, no matter what I said or did, would make you happy.

Not everyone jar, just the ones who have something to say. If you need proof, you can just read through all the threads.

You made an assertion. Now, as if that was not confusing enough you add... I've read the threads rat and I do not see any such pattern.And with your last message I a am totally lost who "the ones that have something to say" refers to. Is that the people you claim call people fundie racist bigots or the fundie racist bigots themselves or anyone that believes in god or anyone that has something to say here?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Would you hire a plumber who can't see a problem or one who goes and looks to see if there is a problem? It isn't about making anybody else happy. It's about self-examination, self-improvement. You're coming across as somebody who thinks he doesn't need any improvement in his attitudes.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Yeah, that brunettes are jealous of blondes so they made shit up about them. There is a trend in making jokes about it, but surely there is nothing remotely factual about blondes being dumb, right? People are dumb, sometimes. Sometimes people have blond hair. That's about it, right? If she was really taking care of herself she would use a condom for ANY sexual partner, why signal out one race as a higher risk when having unprotected sex places one in the highest risk?I would say she was being very ignorant if she didn't have sex with black men just because that race has a high risk of HIV. It's actually highest amongst poor people. So a black kid from a rich family is less of a risk than a white kid from a poor family.- Oni

She's being racist.If she was in a hypothetical situation where she had to have unprotected sex with one of two men and the only information she was given about them was their skin color, then it would be a safer bet to choose the one who wasn't black, and one could find no fault with her.But in real life, no-one is obliged to judge people using their only their skin color as a proxy for the more relevant information which is in fact available to them.If an employer hires only Asian employees because on average they get better test scores, is that racist? Yes. Because he could look at the actual test scores. Which would not only be fairer to the workers, but would also result in a better qualified pool of employees.In real life, we always have the option of judging people: "not [...] by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"; which is not only fairer to them but also more advantageous to us. Anyone looking for an excuse not to do so is indeed being racist, not to mention stupid.

It's a federal offense to put mail in someone's mailbox?Sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing!