Author Topic: Fine line between racism and ignorance.  (Read 4579 times)

Ikarsik

  • Hydlaa Resident
  • *
  • Posts: 121
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #15 on: March 12, 2005, 02:44:19 pm »
ya i like the saying their are two people i hate.. racists and black people.

maybe there is so much focus on racism because their hasnt been a world war in a long time. All the asians and blacks and americans and europeans should gang up and start a massive five way war, then their would be no racism

Monketh

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 1674
  • aka GovernmentAgent, CorporateAgent
    • View Profile
    • Niihama.ws
(No subject)
« Reply #16 on: March 12, 2005, 04:46:24 pm »
Technically Ikarsik, Americans are asians, blacks, and europeans.

I must say that the media actually \"sells\" stereotypes (such as white-men can\'t dance and all blacks are ghetto).  
I wonder though, if white males actually created trance.  :P
The key to manipulative bargaining is to ask for something twice as big as what you want, then smile and nod when you are talked down to your original wish. You are still young, my apprentice, and have much to learn in the ways of the force. -UtM

Foresteer

  • Hydlaa Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 398
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #17 on: March 12, 2005, 07:40:39 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by KwartzTheKran
can you show me this evidence to support regional over genetic? Celts were tall, romans were short, I find it hard to believe this was an enviromentally effective variable.


wel id find it hard to pull up a page as i have no clue where t look... but think about it.. if 3 generations of your family are short... then what are you going to be? by regional i mean affected by the enviroment then passed down via \"famliy line\" becaue technicaly a \"race\" is just a bigassed interbreeding family :P (ok they are different enough for it to still have enough fresh genes..but basicaly most people from a country have similar \"famliy atributes\" that they all share which what makes them similar.. but not automaticaly all-inclusive IE some families of rome where quite tall for the time period and have stayed taller then the average to this day)
Warning the truth may blow your brain to shreds... Click at your own risk :P[/disclaimer]

Annah

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 1122
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #18 on: March 12, 2005, 09:07:29 pm »
Okay, masters in biology, you\'re kinda wrong. The difference between the human races are insignificant, and mainly does not count and exists from different reasons.

 Black people are black, from the simple fact they mainly lived in areas where the heat was very high, due to this fact they adapted at this. Their skin is darker, and it\'s more resistant than others at heat and some radiations.

 And despire white, black and asian, there are dozens of other types you know, but we\'re all the same. We share the same genetic code.

 And no, we are not sharing anything common with the monkeys, because we have many DNA chains they don\'t have, and it was kinda impossible to evolve from them, because we can\'t have them and they don\'t have them. Also, in time it\'s impossible to loose them as well. When you \"evolve\" some genes goes to recessive form, but they don\'t dissapear.

 Meh, don\'t argue because I am specialized in the biology - chemestry area. Racism? Nah, just some idiot people who doesn\'t know why they really exist, that have some \"moral\" problems :rolleyes:
- Black Order -

buddha

  • Hydlaa Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 327
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #19 on: March 12, 2005, 11:48:33 pm »
Hey Annah, just want to clear something up.

You say we could not have evolved from monkeys and cite differences in DNA.  I suppose you are refering to the fact that we are more related to apes than monkeys.  If that is the case, you are correct.  If not, I beg to respectfully disagree with you.

It is true that are sequences in human DNA that are not present in ape DNA.  However, that is entirely consistent with evolutionary theory.  This is neither the time nor place for the argument, but there is no inconsistency in the theory.

And yes, I will cite my own expertise: I work for Kenneth Lange, one of the modern geniuses of mathematical genetics.  Also, I\'m working for Victoria Sork, an emminent oak tree geneticist.  So you can trust me when I talk about genetics...
~~
May all your sequences converge.

Xordan

  • Crystal Space Developer
  • Forum Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 3845
  • For God and the Empire
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #20 on: March 12, 2005, 11:56:03 pm »
We have DNA chains that monkeys don\'t have and vice versa because of evolution. We didn\'t directly evolve from them, but we did evolve from their ancestors, as they evolved from our ancestors.

Foresteer

  • Hydlaa Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 398
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #21 on: March 13, 2005, 12:23:06 am »
right :) and you are right annah about WHY color is different.. i was stating why height and such is semi race specific not that they are.

and wow buddha thats rather impressive :D i have been meaning to break into genetics but my extensive orgone work doesn\'t allow addition time for the MANY things i study and genetics n_n;; (Art, Biology, Parapsycology, Linguistics, Military Tactics, Gunsmithing, Machine Shop, Farming Work, Engineering, Forestry, Computer hardware, Music Making, Anti-NWO research and Forum posting.. just to name 5% of what i do/study in a given day O.o ) But orgone and psioncs take up about 50% of all my time XD (its so damn extensive ;( exciting and fruitful but long and arduous)
Warning the truth may blow your brain to shreds... Click at your own risk :P[/disclaimer]

Annah

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 1122
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #22 on: March 13, 2005, 12:13:22 pm »
Quote
I suppose you are refering to the fact that we are more related to apes than monkeys.

 Put the problem how you want. Both ways I am stating my words. You have to understand (mostly because you say you are proficient in this area) that everything are just pure theories. Nothing is for sure aye? If it was, then it was a fact, not a theory.
 Maybe we evolved from flowers :rolleyes:

 And stopping being sarcastic, there even was a theory that said everything \"is created\" from \"nothing\", theory that was believed by most of the people until few centuries ago. Why was unique, is because it was the 1st one that didn\'t have to do with religion, and the implications of a supernatural being. Besides, there are dozens of other theories than the evolutionist one. So, which one is the correct one? Maybe one of them, maybe all of them, maybe none ...

 We have to trust the evolutionist theory only because there are some facts explained by science that couldn\'t be explained in the past? Ever thought of what \"science\" will find in the future? Also, there are other theories regarding our \"life\" around here, that have the support of science as well, so ...

 And Xordan, the main problem of the evolutionist theory, like I said, is the \"missing DNA chains\". They do not dissappear, they are going into recesive ( \"hidden\" ) state. And this is said by the science :P
« Last Edit: March 13, 2005, 12:14:25 pm by Annah »
- Black Order -

Foresteer

  • Hydlaa Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 398
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #23 on: March 13, 2005, 12:24:31 pm »
Just like that episode of Star Trek TNG where the T cell caused all reccesive genes to.. oh um O.o OMG LOOK OVER THERE!!!!!! *runs and hides in his little trekkie closet :P *
Warning the truth may blow your brain to shreds... Click at your own risk :P[/disclaimer]

Annah

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 1122
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #24 on: March 13, 2005, 12:29:42 pm »
ah? Damn trekkies ... :P

 PS - I don\'t have a clue about what you\'re talking about. You know, not everyone is watching Star Trek, so, care to explain? :D
- Black Order -

Foresteer

  • Hydlaa Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 398
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #25 on: March 13, 2005, 12:50:18 pm »
Warning the truth may blow your brain to shreds... Click at your own risk :P[/disclaimer]

buddha

  • Hydlaa Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 327
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #26 on: March 13, 2005, 04:46:12 pm »
Well, this thread is taking that path, so I\'ll participate.

Let me first say that, though I may disagree with some people on this topic, it does not mean I have no respect for their opinions.  Everyone has the right to choose to accept or not accept modern science, and that is solely their perogative.

Now, regarding the fact/theory distinction.  I think this is one that is not clearly understood by most people.  Notice that gravitation, evolution and electromagnetism are all theories where gravity, dna and electrons are all facts.  A theory is a method of describing facts.  For instance, we all know that things fall to the ground, but noone is really sure why. Simillarly, we can demonstrate (yes, we can) that living creatures exhibit changes in their dna in response to selective pressures.  Also, dna holds the fundamental information for the creature.  Thus, things evolve.  This is a demonstrable fact.  Why?  That\'s the subject of evolutionary theory.

Once again, I don\'t fault anyone for not accepting these things.  However, when you turn on a light, you are impliciting accepting the theory of electromagnetism (since you are causing the flow of electrons).  WHen you hit your brakes on your car, you are implicitly accepting the theory of gravity (since it causes friction) and, like it or not, when you eat a potato, you are implicitly accepting the theory of evolution (since potatoes have been put under evolutionary pressure to be non-toxic).

Personally, I like to implicity accept the theory of evolution with mayonaise and balsamic vinegar.
~~
May all your sequences converge.

Annah

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 1122
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #27 on: March 13, 2005, 05:10:06 pm »
The electromagnetism, as well the gravitation are facts, not theories. And yes, a theory is a method of explaining facts, from the point of view of the one who releases the theory. Of course, like always will happen, there are people that will support it, and others that will oppose it. This is inevitable, and that\'s the way things are working.

 Though, having someone that shares some beliefs with you, doesn\'t mean you are right. You say you don\'t fault anyone for not accepting these things, but in a subtile way, even if you don\'t want it, you are pressing them to accept the evolutionist theory.

 Nothing is certain, and that\'s why it\'s still a theory. This is something you cannot compare with things we can still study, that still exists, things that we do not understand yet. This is something totally different. I doubt you can go back in time and see how the human race came around.

 Like I said, there are dozens of theories, each of them having something \"logical\" in them. But, didn\'t you ask yourself? After all, what means \"logical\"?
 
Quote
we can demonstrate (yes, we can) that living creatures exhibit changes in their dna

 Yes of course, we can. But you have to understand that DNA chains simply do not dissappear, they merely change, going into recesive state, evolving if you like this word.

 I for example, I am not embracing any theory, I like to form my own ...
- Black Order -

buddha

  • Hydlaa Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 327
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #28 on: March 13, 2005, 05:29:24 pm »
DNA chains actually do disappear.  This is why we can use microsatellites for genotyping.  With the insertion and deletion of sections of dna, microsatellite  analysis would be impossible.

I agree I am subtlely pressuring people to agree with me.  That is why I was sort of reluctant to joint this thread, because I generally like the people around here and save my shouting matches for elsewhere.

Gravity => fact.  Gravitation, the method of explaining gravity => theory.
Electrons => fact.  Electromagnetism => theory.
Genetic response to selection pressure => fact.  Evolution => theory.

And I totally agree that there are many many things we don\'t understand yet.  The best you can do, if you are interested in things like this, is come up with consistent, testable and useful theories to explain what we know now.

It\'s the usefullness test that really needs to be passed.  That means, can it anticipate new information and point us in directions of discovery?  Evolution passes this test again and again.

From a philosophical point of view, there is no need to accept evolution.  The  goal of evolutionary theory is to explain, in the most concise and efficient way possible, the natural world around us.  If that is your goal, you need to work with evolutionary theory.  If it is not, then it is not necessary.  I mean, not everyone is a natural scientist, right?  In contrast, we all need to accept that murder is bad.

I seriously hope this is not generating any bad blood.  That is not my intention.  I feel that polite people can have contrary discussions.  Impolite people, on the other hand.... I have had some flame wars with people I thought a bit rude on other threads.
~~
May all your sequences converge.

Annah

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 1122
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #29 on: March 13, 2005, 05:34:44 pm »
Nah, don\'t worry, we\'re just having a conversation, and I hope no rude person will interffere, with flames or things like these.
Quote
Gravity => fact. Gravitation, the method of explaining gravity => theory.

 A fact cannot be explained by something that still is a theory, because it won\'t be a fact anymore. It will be an application of a theory.

 And I meant that DNA chains do not dissappear in time, if organisms are \"evolving\" like some said.
- Black Order -