ecpve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's be clear here Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > pklk4 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The question was not and is not whether sperm
> > or
> > > egg are living cells of human origin.
> >
> > Yes, it was and it still is the question, and
> you
> > have fucked the matter up very badly right from
> > the beginning, Prof. Disqualified.
>
> No, it wasn't. The question at its core was/is
> whether a fetus represents human life. You don't
> know enough to even make the Sagan-esque 'life is
> a continuum' argument that you're attempting
> properly. Nobody would argue that a sperm cell is
> an example of something that meets the basic
> definition of what is at a fundamental level
> "alive." Nobody but your dumb ass would confuse
> that to try to argue that a sperm cell is
human
> life. More significantly, it alone can never
> give rise to human life. Your statement re
> "Nothing changed in their union" between sperm and
> egg very obviously is false.
>
> >
> > > Which is the same type of misleading nonsense
> > that
> > > you believe because it supports what you'd
> like
> > to
> > > believe.
> >
> > More of the abject ignorance of established
> > science that you have now so vividly displayed
> in
> > two separate threads. In scientific terms, you
> > are a worthless ASS-FRAUD.
>
>
> You've posted nothing here resembling science
> established or otherwise. Just your own "dogma."
>
>
> > > Stated more accurately, what we call race in
> > humans
> > > does not represent distinct species or
> > subspecies.
> >
> > There are three genetically discontinuous
> > populations of chimpanzees (pan troglodytes).
> > There is one genetically continuous population
> of
> > human beings (homo sapiens).
>
>
> Because you found one misleading study which was
> done with a predetermined conclusion attempting to
> inappropriately equate race in humans to
> species/bonobos in chimps doesn't deny genetic
> commonality/variance among humans. Your second
> statement is false. There are in fact
> identifiable sub-populations of humans based on
> common geographic ancestry which can be identified
> and traced back based on specific genetic
> variances. Because there has been greater
> admixing across these populations vs chimps
> doesn't mean that identifiable variances among
> humans don't exist. They very clearly do.
>
>
> > > Race very clearly does exist in humans
> because
> > we
> > > have defined it to represent various physical
> > > characteristics which we use to aggregate
> > groups
> > > of humans for a variety of social purposes.
> >
> > You are admitting now that there is actually no
> > genetic foundation for anything that could be
> > called 'race' among human beings, and that in
> > actuality, the whole notion is just a misguided
> > and mistaken social construct. You should have
> > said so earlier.
>
>
> Except that you cut out all of the rest where I
> did exactly that. lmao
>
> Want some more? No problem...
>
>
Quote
> Categorization of humans in biomedical research:
> genes, race and disease
> Genome Biol. 2002
>
> Neil Risch
> Department of Genetics, Stanford University School
> of Medicine
> Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente
>
> Esteban Burchard
> Department of Medicine, University of California
>
> Elad Ziv
> Department of Medicine, University of California
>
> Hua Tang
> Department of Statistics, Stanford University
>
> Studying 14 indigenous populations from 5
> continents with 30 microsatellite loci, Bowcock et
> al. [7] observed that the 14 populations clustered
> into the five continental groups, as depicted in
> Figure 1.1. The African branch included three
> sub-Saharan populations, CAR pygmies, Zaire
> pygmies, and the Lisongo; the Caucasian branch
> included Northern Europeans and Northern Italians;
> the Pacific Islander branch included Melanesians,
> New Guineans and Australians; the East Asian
> branch included Chinese, Japanese and Cambodians;
> and the Native American branch included Mayans
> from Mexico and the Surui and Karitiana from the
> Amazon basin. The identical diagram has since been
> derived by others, using a similar or greater
> number of microsatellite markers and individuals
> [8,9]. More recently, a survey of 3,899 SNPs in
> 313 genes based on US populations (Caucasians,
> African-Americans, Asians and Hispanics) once
> again provided distinct and non-overlapping
> clustering of the Caucasian, African-American and
> Asian samples [12]: "The results confirmed the
> integrity of the self-described ancestry of these
> individuals". Hispanics, who represent a recently
> admixed group between Native American, Caucasian
> and African, did not form a distinct subgroup, but
> clustered variously with the other groups. A
> previous cluster analysis based on a much smaller
> number of SNPs led to a similar conclusion: "A
> tree relating 144 individuals from 12 human groups
> of Africa, Asia, Europe and Oceania, inferred from
> an average of 75 DNA polymorphisms/individual, is
> remarkable in that most individuals cluster with
> other members of their regional group" [13].
> Effectively, these population genetic studies have
> recapitulated the classical definition of races
> based on continental ancestry - namely African,
> Caucasian (Europe and Middle East), Asian, Pacific
> Islander (for example, Australian, New Guinean and
> Melanesian), and Native American.
>
>
> It's science brah. Don't deny it.
Real scientist vs "social scientist" ^^^
You could have cited 1000 studies, and it wouldn't have changed his mind - these people are literally delusional, and they live in a subjective reality of their own creation. They think that if they say, "race is a social construct," it is, that there is no empirical, objective reality, and anything that demonstrably refutes their made-up world is wrong by virtue of refuting anything they believe.