Re: How many races of humans are there?

On Jan 29, 10:34 pm, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:49:58 -0800 (PST), "John M."

<john_howard_mor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 28, 11:56 pm, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:54:26 -0800 (PST), "John M."

<john_howard_mor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 28, 4:00 pm, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 04:54:22 -0800 (PST), "John M."

<john_howard_mor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 27, 6:22 pm, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:32:36 -0800 (PST), "John M."

<john_howard_mor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 26, 6:12 pm, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 02:14:11 -0800 (PST), "John M."

<john_howard_mor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 26, 12:56 am, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:17:30 -0800 (PST), "John M."

<john_howard_mor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 26, 12:06 am, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 14:51:20 -0800 (PST), "John M."

<john_howard_mor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 24, 1:50 pm, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 03:29:41 -0800 (PST), "John M."
<john_howard_mor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 23, 10:53 pm, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:19:12 -0800 (PST), "John M."
<john_howard_mor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 23, 4:54 pm, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:15:02 -0800 (PST), "John M."
<john_howard_mor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 22, 10:30 pm, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:

What's your definition of "the human race"?

It's a colloquialism. In common parlance it is used to indicate the
species 'Homo sapiens'

It is much more of value in this world of division than the racial
endeavour of describing people by their taxonomic differences.

There are counter arguments to this proposition, but as you never take
any interest in what is going on in the world around you, you would
not know about these.

That's
racist in itself.

No it isn't. Racism is about a negative state of mind in some
individuals towards others - rather like you are and Hitler was toward
homosexuals.

That's discrimination. And I don't discriminate against homosexuals.
I opposed the removal of Section 28 like more than half the country.

In other words, you wished to retain the existing discrimination.
You're a bigot, Angus.

Then more than half the country are bigots.

Likely quite a bit more than half.

Are you saying that everyone who voted against the overturn of section
28 are bigots?

Yes. That's the only reason I can see for being against it.

http://briandeer.com/social/clause-28.htm

"Many scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise,
arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many
gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to
the culture making the racial distinctions; thus they reject the
notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have
taxonomic rigour and validity"

Why are you quoting what "many scientists" say? You have always made
abundantly clear your opinion of scientists. Can we take it your view
will therefore be the opposite of theirs?

You're the one who takes scientific arguments seriously. The quote
was for your consumption.

No it wasn't. It came straight from the Wikipedia article I gave you a
link for. It was clearly intended to try and gainsay what you imagined
I thought about subspecific differentiation in Humans.

That's why I posted it for your consumption.

You posted it because you thought I might not notice it was a quote
from a link I directed you to in the first place. It also serves to
show you are making some progress toward enlightenment.

It doesn't matter where it came from. I posted it for your
consumption.

Your re-framing of your question tells me you have not yet undertaken
the required reading. Here's a dumbed-down version of what you need to
know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation

Once you have read, learned and inwardly digested its content, you
will no longer need to ask me questions which are mostly devoid of
meaning. Thank goodness for that!

See above.

And do tell me. How many races of humans do you think there are?

Renewing your question leads me to a couple of competing hypotheses:
1. You have once again failed to read any account of the use of
subspecies (=races) in biological investigation and therefore do not
know anything about the taxonomic thinking behind this term.
2. You have read extensively on the subject, but have failed
intellectually to assimilate any sense or meaning from what you read.

My own inclination is to suppose 1., on the grounds that it will save
you from the self-embarrassment of 2. In other words you are
practicing willful ignorance.

Is that why you're a duff scientist?

You jump to conclusions without any valid evidence.

What are you blathering about. I gave no conclusion, simply competing
hypotheses and a remark implying which of them I would test first.

But you deemed one of them to be the correct one.

They are two of many possible conflicting hypotheses.

I see you've now inserted the word "many" :-))

Hypotheses are in the eye of the beholder. However many you dream up,
there's always another one you didn't. That's what makes science so
fascinating. It makes progress even when we get it wrong.

I'd say that's a contradiction.
...
To a scientist
that means determining absolute truth is out of the question.

By slippery qualifiers in most cases I would imagine.

Only
falsity can be established 100%.

Except taxes and death and quite a few others.

Scientific hypotheses are the subject here, not factual matters.

So there are no "facts" in science. Perhaps you should tell Malcolm.

I'm sure he knows the difference between the use of facts in science
to support hypotheses which are the content of science.

I'm not sure he knows very much.

Of course you're not sure. Your not an expert in anything, remember?

Where did I say that?

I obviously didn't.

You've already said that scientific hypotheses are not factual
matters.

They are not. So....

You really do need to make up your mind.

What are you going on about, you silly person.

On the on hand you're saying "hypotheses are not factual matters" and
on the other "the use of facts in science".

There is no contradiction.

Fact: solutions of copper(2) salts in water are blue.
Hypothesis: The blue colour is due to d-shell electrons of the Cu(H2O)
4++ ion interacting with white light.

The first is not a scientific fact; it's a natural occurrence that
occurred long before "science" was even thought of.

Nope. The blue colour was not associated with copper(2) salts until
well after Alchemy had evolved into Chemistry

Are you saying it never occurred naturally?



So don't claim what isn't "yours".

The second is only a theory.

Nope. It's a hypothesis all right. You need to take a course of
English that includes an introduction to synonyms.

Perhaps you should.

Why would that be? I already know a synonym for 'hypothesis' is
'theory'

So the sum total is a fat zero.

The total adds up to A.McM being disingenuous. Your business affairs
have certainly improved your capacity for mendacity.

I am beginning to form an impression that when you are starting to
find the going difficult you edge towards personal insult and abuse.
There have been one or two posts where I feel your replies are
intended to be insulting. Are you incapable of holding your own in
open debate without that.

I am beginning to form an impression that when you are starting to
find the going difficult you edge towards cutting and pasting someone
else's words. There have been one or two posts where I feel your
replies are not your words but simply ones copied from anothers'
posts. Are you incapable of holding your own in open debate without
that.

Seems you're confused again.

I'm certainly confused about how any individual who doesn't live in an
institution i.e. A.McM. could be so incredibly dense. Usually people
with such a low level of normal skills are kept apart from society for
their own good.

Or become duff scientists :-))

To be a credible scientist, as well as to be a duff one even, requires
a person to acquire some knowledge of the subject. Anyone with
below normal learning skills cannot get the book learning under their
belt to convince any ruling cabal of any kind to admit them.

A definite advantage :-)

Are you saying you have no expertise in the psychology of rich old
ladies, prior to your targeting them. What a duff 'Dell-boy' you are.

That's why you were never able to get a job and had to rely on making
a living conning people out of their savings with dodgy 'business'
schemes. I expect the series, "Only Fools and Horses" was inspired by
your life story.

I am beginning to form an impression that when you are starting to
find the going difficult you edge towards personal insult and abuse.
There have been one or two posts where I feel your replies are
intended to be insulting. Are you incapable of holding your own in
open debate without that.

Cut and post what others said about you as much as you like. It's good
to remind us of how inexpert you are at having any original thought.
I'm surprised you chose words from this particular person though,
considering the insults you've posted about him in the past..

Perhaps the next time you're in court, it'll be in the dock alongside
Bernard Madoff.

Not me. I don't claim to be an expert in anything.

Don't bank on it. Only if you were an expert wide-boy would you not
end up in the dock. And you claim you are a duff spiv, it seems. At
least, not an expert one.

<snip>

Not me. I don't claim to be an expert in anything.

You're rather slow on the uptake. I've been saying that for years.

An inexpert opinion and therefore worthless.

If so, it's evident you think I'm an expert in everything :-))

As you have no expertise in *anything*, why are you posting opinions
about virtually *everything*.

Because those who say they're experts don't seem to have any
expertise at all.

It would need an expert to determine that. You are not one.

I don't claim to be an expert in anything.

So withdraw your statement above about expertise

What statement?

The one above, exactly as I referred it previously.

What are you an expert in?

Hedonism and the enjoyment of life.

Certainly not science, it would seem.

I'm too modest to claim expertise. I can spot a wide-boy when I see
one though, and I'm replying to one now.

I see you can't cope with being called a duff scientist :-))

It means absolutely nothing coming from one who makes money by non-
violently mugging old ladies for their life savings.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How many races of humans are there?
    ... endeavour of describing people by their taxonomic differences. ... to support hypotheses which are the content of science. ... find the going difficult you edge towards personal insult and abuse. ... There have been one or two posts where I feel your replies are ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: How many races of humans are there?
    ... endeavour of describing people by their taxonomic differences. ... to support hypotheses which are the content of science. ... find the going difficult you edge towards personal insult and abuse. ... There have been one or two posts where I feel your replies are ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: How many races of humans are there?
    ... to support hypotheses which are the content of science. ... find the going difficult you edge towards personal insult and abuse. ... There have been one or two posts where I feel your replies are ... And you claim you are a duff spiv, ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: MV is the most published author of SAP
    ... He would do better to avoid more than 90% of his posts. ... >> as I see no attempt to do anything more than insult and regurgitate. ... Marc was insulting people before I started posting, ... "critique" of Jim with the false claim that he said his references were ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: 5TH HOTTEST MAY IN 125 YEARS!
    ... >>insult to science to recognize that you do exhibit such a preference. ... LOL - are you intentionally exaggerating now or were you mistaken in the ... LOL - my choice of what to post was indeed quite purposeful. ...
    (sci.geo.meteorology)
Loading