2) That being said, I can still go on Bone Clones and purchase a generalized version of a European, Asian, African and Australian Aboriginal skull for use in teaching skeletal variation and identification...as such generalizations still have value in skeletal analyses
-
-
Replying to @Bananaaquamelon @Race__Realist and
Human subspeciation is feared as an assault on human dignity. 160 years after Darwin, people have still not fully come to terms with the fact that we are animals. I think the denial of race, which has garnered a very thick scientific-sounding veneer, is a manifestation of this.
5 replies 3 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @arnoldtohtfan @Race__Realist and
All the humans in the world have a more narrow gene pool than all the chimpanzees in Gombe. We went through several vary intense bottlenecks. Biologists agree that not enough variation exists for subspecies designation
7 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @Bananaaquamelon @Race__Realist and
On this matter I'm going to trust my own eyes over any counter intuitive "rigorous science" you have to offer me. Call me a naïve realist, but this all that needs to be said, as far as I'm concerned. https://www.minds.com/fs/v1/thumbnail/741500407016071173 …
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @arnoldtohtfan @Race__Realist and
Lol. Dogs are a subspecies of wolves. AND dogs are more phenotypically variable than humans but get “breed” not “subspecies” designation. Either you want to talk biology or you want to make stuff up on your own. If the latter then stop trying to use biology to support your views
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @Bananaaquamelon @Race__Realist and
Subspecies, breed, race, whatever sounds least offensive to you. Semantic diversions aside, anyone with the temerity to trust their lyin' eyes knows the truth. No amount of jargon or obscurantism can suppress our visceral disgust when confronted with that which is alien to us.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @arnoldtohtfan @Race__Realist and
Science is expressly formulated with systems of measurements so that people to do rely on only “trusting” their senses. Sounds like you are arguing against science and the systemic study of the material world
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Bananaaquamelon @Race__Realist and
I take issue with "rigorous science" turning up results that fly in the face of all rational intuition. There's more variation between animals that all look identical, but humans that couldn't look more different are homogenous under a microscope? Sorry, I don't buy it. It reeks.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @arnoldtohtfan @Race__Realist and
You appear to be more of a philosopher than a scientist then. Nothing wrong with it. We all pick our poisons. But you can’t have useful discussions without understanding the disciplinary guidelines and limitations
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Bananaaquamelon @arnoldtohtfan and
The problem is that there is *so* much pressure on scientists to publish results showing that race isn't real and not to publish the opposite that any claims need to be very carefully examined.
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes
So the claim "humans have a more narrow gene pool than chimps in garambe" may actually be true in some sense but not true or relevant in others. We have to define this and whatever we actually care about much better if we want to get anywhere.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.